The main legal point established in the judgment is that if an employee is not at fault and is vindicated at the end of the day, denying the fruits of her vindication would be unfair. The court also emphasized the discretion exercised by the court in considering the facts of each case.

JUDGMENT :

Leave granted.

1. The appellant impugns the judgment of the Division Bench by which the High Court confirmed the view taken by the learned single Judge. The original appellant passed away and the legal representatives pursue the appeal as additional appellants.

2. The appellant was appointed as Staff Nurse (Group-C) with the respondent. There was an inquiry against her by the respondent on the charge that the appellant had professed to belong to the Scheduled Caste category and secured employment, whereas, she did not belong to the Scheduled Caste community. The Tahasildar verified the caste certificate and vide order dated 10.07.2009, it was found that the appellant did not belong to the community ‘Adi Karnataka’ which is a Scheduled Caste. The appellant challenged the order of the Tahasildar before the High Court and the learned single Judge repelled the challenge to the order by its judgment dated 29.12.2009. Following the said judgment, it is that the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 08.10.2010, dismissed the appellant from service relying upon the order of the Tahasildar. The appellant challenged the judgment of the learned single Judge before the Division Bench and the Division Bench by judgment dated 28.06.2011 allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and found that actually the power to rule on the Caste status did not lie with the Tahasildar but with another authority and verification of the caste certificate was directed to be made over to the Bangalore District Caste Verification Committee, which was the Competent Authority. The said authority verified the caste status of the appellant and found that the appellant, in fact, belonged to the Scheduled Caste in question. There upon the appellant gave a representation and on 12.04.2014, the appellant was reinstated without any consequential benefits. A representation dated 28.04.2014, did not yield results. This occasioned the filing of the writ petitions, which has finally generated the appeals before us.

3. The learned Single Judge partly allowed the Writ Petitions filed and directed the first respondent to give promotion, if any, notionally and 50 per cent of the back wages and the retirement benefits on the basis of the last pay cheque that she would be entitled to, in case, she were granted any notional promotion. The appellant filed a review petition which was dismissed. Thereafter, the writ appeals were filed, which culminated in the impugned order being passed, affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that denial of the full back wages is unsustainable as it is a case where the appellant was not at fault. She was kept out of the employment without any misconduct on her part. She always belonged to the caste in question and denial of the full back wages is not justified.

6. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents would point out that impugned orders would reflect that the Court had reconciled the relevant aspects that both the appellant and the respondents were not at fault. He would further project the dimension that it is a case where in the writ petition the appellant had not specifically pleaded that she was not gainfully employed during the period in question. It was only in the review petition that the case was set up which was rightly rejected. He also sought to draw support from a line of judgments for the contention that Courts have recognised that merely upon an employee being reinstated it does not ipso facto follow that he becomes entitled for full back wages. In such circumstances, those decisions will decide the destiny of such a claim. In the facts of this case, having regard to the fact that two Courts have concurrently found that the respondents were acting on the basis of the report of Tahasildar who had opined that the appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste, the res