The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant was a probationer as per the Service Rules, and the denial of back wages was balanced by directing the respondent Bank to pay the lease rental of the appellant's residence.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. - The appeal impugns the judgment dated 4th August, 2020 of the Single Judge, in W.P.(C) No.3113/2020 filed by the appellant, to the extent the same declares the appellant as 'a probationer' and denies back wages to the petitioner for the period she remained out of service.

2. Although in an appeal there is no need for duplication of pleadings and without leave of Court, no additional facts or factual pleas can be urged, however, in the instant case, when the appeal was entertained it was ordered that pleadings be completed in the present appeal. Pursuant thereto, counter affidavit and rejoinder have been filed.

3. We have heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondent Bank.

4. The writ petition, from which this appeal arises, was filed by the appellant impugning the letter dated 27th March, 2020 of the respondent Bank whereby the service/employment of the appellant with the respondent Bank at the post of General Manager (Finance) was terminated on the ground of the appellant not meeting the mandatory eligibility criteria of having minimum three years experience in heading the Finance and Accounting Department of a Bank or one level below the Head of Finance and Accounting Department in a Bank. The Single Judge, vide the impugned judgment, has (i) set aside the letter/order dated 27th March, 2020 of termination of services of the appellant, for the reason of the same being ex-facie stigmatic; (ii) directed the respondent Bank to reinstate the appellant with immediate effect; (iii) left it open to the respondent Bank to take any further action as it may deem fit in accordance with law and further making it clear that "in view of findings above with regard to the status of appellant as probationer, appellant will be reinstated as a probationer from the date of her termination"; and, (iv) directed that the period for which the appellant remained out of service would be counted as period spent on duty, for all purposes, but held the appellant not entitled to back wages but directed the respondent Bank to pay the rent of the premises taken on rent by the appellant as a part of her service condition.

5. In view of the order aforesaid in the writ petition from which this appeal arises, we have at the outset enquired from the counsel for the respondent Bank, (i) whether the respondent Bank has also appealed against the subject order/judgment; and, (ii) whether the respondent Bank has, after the impugned JUDGMENT, taken any steps vis-a-vis the appellant.

6. The counsel for the respondent Bank states that the respondent Bank has accepted the judgment and not appealed against the same. It is further informed that the Managing Director of the respondent Bank has joined recently and the decision with respect to the appellant, pursuant to the impugned JUDGMENT, is yet to be taken.

7. We may at the outset only notice that the counsel for the respondent Bank, with respect to the challenge to the judgment of the Single Judge, insofar as denying back wages to the appellant, has fairly stated that the respondent Bank leaves the same to the discretion of the Court.

8. At this stage, the factual controversy which is not in dispute may be taken note of.

9. The respondent Bank issued a letter dated 16th December, 2016 to the appellant, offering to the appellant the post of General Manager (Finance) in the respondent Bank. The said letter, besides other terms and conditions contained therein, in Clause 3 titled "Probation and Confirmation" thereof provided as under:-

"3. Probation and Confirmation:

You shall be placed on probation for a period of one year, during which your performance will be monitored with a view to determining your suitability for confirmation as envisaged and expected for the post you have been employed at. The period of probation may be extended as deemed fit and as per the discretion of the Competent Authority. You shall be issued a formal letter of confirmation on satisfactory comp