C.N. MALLA versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 13 S.C.R. 479 · Decided: 24-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009J 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 479 
C.N. MALLA 
A 
v. 
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5770 of 2009) 
AUGUST 24, 2009 
8 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
~ 
).--
Service Law - Back wages - Award of - Employee 
absent unauthorisedly - Dismissal from service - Set aside 
by Single Judge of High Court and award of full back wages c 
from date of filing writ petition upto date of superannuation -
Set aside by Division Bench - On appeal, held: Direction to 
pay back wages in its entirety is not automatic consequent 
; 
upon declaration of dismissal order bad in law - Court is 
required to exe;cise discretion reasonably and judiciously -
D 
.J. 
Division Bench refused back wages on the ground of 
unauthorised leave which was not established - Division 
Bench also held that payment of back wages would be against 
public interest and would drain public exchequer - Not 
founded on legal premise - In the interest of justice, 
E 
employee awarded 50% back wages from the date of filing writ 
petition until he attained the age of superannuation - Jammu 
~ 
& Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) 
~ 
Rules, 1956. 
The question which arose for consideration in this 
F 
appeal is whether the Division Bench of the High Court 
was justified in setting aside the order of the Single Judge 
of High Court awarding back wages to the appellant from 
the date of filing writ petition upto the date of 
G 
superannuation. 
' 
-1 . 
Partly allowing the "ppeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The direction to pay back wages in its 
479 
H 
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A entirety is not automatic consequent upon declaration of 
)-·· 
dismissal order bad in law. The concept of discretion is 
inbuilt in such exercise. The court is required to exercise 
discretion reasonably and judiciously keeping in view the 
facts and circumstances of the case. Each case would 
B depend on its own facts. The Division Bench was mainly 
influenced by two reasons in denying the .. appellant back 
wages - unauthorised leave and delay in approaching the 
court. The two reasons noticed by the Division Bench 
~ 
..,. 
neither collectively nor individually justify denial of back 
c wages to the appellant in its entirety. The allegation of 
unauthorized absence has not been established as no 
enquiry Was held; and the case of the appellant was that 
he had sent several applications for extension of leave 
for undergoing further training. The Single Judge took 
' 
D note of the delay aspect and it was for this reason that 
back .wages were not awarded to him for the period from 
~ 
date of termination until date of filing writ petition. The 
observation of the Division Bench that if the court orders 
payment of back wages to the petitioner-appellant, it will 
E be against the public interest and also will drain the 
public exchequer is not _founded on legal premise. [Para 
12] [485-B-F] 
1.2. ·Having regard to all relevant facts and 
a. 
circumstances, particularly the fact that the appellant is 
~ 
F a doctor by profession and must not have remained idle 
even after filing writ petition, full back wages from the 
date of filing writ petition until date of superannuation 
may not be justified. The demand of justice would be met 
if the appellant is awarded 50% back wages from the 
G date of filing writ petition until he attained the age of 
superannuation. [Para 13] [485-G-H; 486-A] 
-~ ,-
PG/ of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh vs. 
Raj Kumar 2001 (2) SCC 54; U. P. State Brassware 
H 
C.N. MALLA v. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & 481 
ORS. 
Corporation vs. Uday Narain Pandey 2006 (1) SCC 479; .· A 
Metropolitan Transport Corporation vs. V. Venkatesan Civil 
Appeal No.5167/2009 decided on August 7, 2009 by S.C., 
referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
B 
2001 (2) sec 54 
Referred to. 
Para 9 
~ 
~ 
2006 (1) sec 479 
Referred to. 
Para 10 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
5770 of 2009. 
c 
From the Judgment & Order dated 26.03.2008 of the High 
Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu in Latters Patent Appeal 
No. 372 of 2000. 
-J 
P.S. Patwalia, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, A.S. Rahi, S. Vijay 
D 
Singh, Jaswant for the Appellant. 
Anis Suhrawardy, Shamama Anis, Syed Mehdi Imam, 
Tabrez Ahmad for the Respondents. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
._ 
2. In this appeal by special leave, the only question that is 
required to be considered is whether the Division
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.