Subject :
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned .
2. Heard Ms. Ruchira Goel learned counsel appearing for th e petitioner(s) .
3. Representing the State of U.P., the counsel submits tha t the present matter pertains to a Member of the Provincial Arme d Constabulary who were involved in the group mutiny in the yea r 1973. Following that the service of the respondent was terminate d on 23.08.1973 .
4. After his acquittal, the respondent was re-instated i n service on 27.09.2010. However, the direction issued by the Hig h Court in the second round of litigation ordering payment of arrear s salary to the respondent who was already superannuated from servic e on 30.11.2012, is the subject matter of challenge in the presen t special leave petition .
5. The learned counsel would submit that this Court in th e “State of U.P. vs. Mahindra Nath Tiwari” reported in (2010) 2 SC C 252 had clearly held that the decision dated 26.09.1997 in the W.P . No. 46061 of 1998 filed by the Vijay Bahadur Singh would no t entitle back wages, for the re-instated PAC Constable .
6. Ms. Goel would then cite the endorsement by a thre e Judges Bench of this Court on 08.10.2014 (Annexure P-18) on th e aforesaid view taken by this Court in Mahindra Nath Tiwari (supra ) in so far as dis-entitlement to back wages of the re-instated PA C Constable, is concerned .
7. It is accordingly argued that although the judgment i n Mahindra Nath Tiwari (supra) was pressed before the Division Bench , the High Court mechanically followed the judgment in SLP(C) No . 15220 of 2012 (Annexure P-11) in “State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Lalla n Shukla”. The State counsel would contend that granting of bac k wages for those who never rendered any service, is wholl y unjustified and it would place an unnecessary financial burden o n the State exchequer .
8. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks .
9. In the meantime, back wages need not be disbursed i n pursuance of the impugned judgment dated 03.07.2023 .
(NEETA SAPRA) (KAMLESH RAWAT )
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRA R
Vague 'Bad Work' Can't Presume Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Section 4 Without Evidence: Patna High Court
28 Apr 2026
Limiting Crop Damage Compensation to Specific Wild Animals Excluding Birds Violates Article 14: Bombay HC
28 Apr 2026
Appeal Limitation in 1991 Police Rules Yields to Uttarakhand Police Act 2007 on Inconsistency: Uttarakhand HC
28 Apr 2026
Nashik Court Reserves Verdict on Khan's TCS Bail Plea
29 Apr 2026
Delhi Court Grants Bail to I-PAC Director in PMLA Case
30 Apr 2026
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.