DEVENDRA KUMAR SINGH versus ADMINISTRATOR, BIHAR COOP. MKT. UNION LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 282 · Decided: 25-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DEVENDRA KUMAR SINGH 
v. 
ADMINISTRATOR, BIHAR COOP. MKT. UNION LTD. AND ANR. 
APRIL 25, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.) 
Service law: 
Public Sector Undertaking-Payment of salary to employees-Denial 
C of-Held: If State fails to comply with its constitutional obligations, it must 
take appropriate steps so that employee should not be deprived of his legal 
rights to obtain salary-Division Bench of the High Court erred in reversing 
the order of the Single Judge for payment of salary to the employee till 
closing a'own of the employer organization in terms of the directions of the 
D Supreme Court in a matter on the similar issue ·-·Constitution of India, 
1950--Article 12. 
Constitution of India, Article 226: 
Writ jurisdiction of High Court-Held: It cannot be enlarged--If any 
E cause of action arises therefor, it would be open to the employee to ventilate 
its grievances before an appropriate Forum. 
The appellant, an employee of the Bihar State cooperative Marketing 
Union Limited (BrSCOMAUN) had not been paid his salary since January, 
1996. He filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court. Single Judge of 
F the High Court by order dated 27.9.2000 directed the employer for payment 
of salary to the Appellant. Aggrieved, the employer preferred a Letters Patent 
Appeal thereagainst, which was allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court 
reversing the order of the Single Judge. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The legal right of the appellant-employee to obtain salary 
has not been disputeu. An order which may not be executed easily is distinct 
and different from declaration of a legal right. While issuing a writ, the Court 
is not concerned as to whether there is an inter se dispute between 
282 
DEVENDRA KUMAR SINGH 1·. ADMINISTRATOR, BIHAR COOP. MKT. UNION LID. [SINHA, J.] 283 
BISCOMAUN, the Public Sector Undertaking and the State of Bihar as A 
regards their respective liability. 1284-GI 
l.2. The Single Judge of the High Court was entirely correct in 
observing that if a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution 
of India is not in a position to comply with its constitutional obligations, it 
must try to find out a way itself to take appropriate steps in that behalf but B 
the same would not mean that the appellant could have been deprived of his 
legal right to obtain salary. 1284-H; 285-A) 
Kapila Hingorani v. State of Bihar, 12003) 6 SCC 1, referred to. 
l.3. The scope of the writ petition could not be enlarged. If any cause of C 
action arises therefor, it would be open to the concerned employees to ventilate 
their grievances before an appropriate forum. In the light of the reasons as 
aforementioned, the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is wholly 
unsustainable, hence set aside. 1285-EJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7659 of2002. 
From the Judgment and Final Order dated 19.7.2001 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Patna in L.P.A. No. 401/2001. 
D 
Sunil Kumar, Anita Kanungo and Himanshu Shekhar for the Appellant. E 
Dinesh Dwivedi, Kailash Vasdev, S.K. Sinha, Ritu Ras Biswas, Gopal 
Singh and B.B. Singh (NP) for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. The Appellant herein is an employee of the Bihar State F 
Cooperative Marketing Union Limited (for short "BISCOMAUN"). He had not 
been paid his salary from the month of January, 1996. He filed a writ petition 
before the Patna High Court. No dispute was raised as regard his legal right 
to receive salary or the quantum thereof. On the aforementioned premise, a 
learned Single Judge of the High Court by an order dated 27.9.2000 while G 
directing payment of salary to the Appellant herein observed: 
"This Court is constrained to note here that admittedly the respondents 
are not in a position to pay even salary to the employees since 
October, 1995, such institution/ organization must not exist. In my 
opinion, all such institutions/ organizations must be immediately closed H 
284 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
down by resorting to winding up proceeding in the light of the Full 
Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mani Kant Pathak & Ors. 
v. The State of Bihar, reported in ( 1997) (I) PLJR 664. 
However, in the counter affidavit, it is not even indicated that any 
such step has been taken, so far. Accordingly, this writ petition is 
B 
allowed with cost of Rs. 2000/- to be paid
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.