GOWRAMMA C (DEAD) BY LRS versus MANAGER (PERSONNEL) HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICAL LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 734 · Decided: 23-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH, HRISHIKESH ROY · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
734
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 734
734
GOWRAMMA C (DEAD) BY LRS
v.
MANAGER (PERSONNEL) HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICAL
LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1575-1576 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 23, 2022
[K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Service law: Back wages – Appellant was appointed as Staff
Nurse with the respondent – Enquiry was held against her that she
professed to belong to Scheduled Caste (SC) category but she did
not belong to SC category – Tahasildar found that she did not belong
the SC community – Single judge of High Court upheld the decision
of Tahasildar – Disciplinary Authority dismissed her service on the
basis of decision of Tahasildar – Appellant appealed against the
decision of Single Judge – Division bench allowed the appeal and
found that actually the power to rule on the caste status did not lie
with the Tahasildar and directed Competent Authority to verify status
– Competent Authority accepted the claim of appellant and she was
reinstated without any consequential benefits – On writ petition,
High Court directed inter alia 50% of back wages – In the instant
appeal, appellant contended that denial of full back wages was not
sustainable as she was not at fault – Held: Appellant was dismissed
from service only on the report given by the Tahasildar – There was
no other charge against her regarding any kind of misconduct or
misrepresentation – Competent authority had cleared the appellant
and she stood vindicated by the view expressed by the authority,
which, in law, could possibly have found as to which caste she
belonged to – It was a case, therefore, where the appellant was
completely blameless in the matter – If the employee is not at all at
fault and she was kept out of work by reasons of the decision taken
by the employer, then to deny the fruits of her being vindicated at
the end of the day would be unfair to the employee – Therefore,
interests of justice, in the facts of this, would be subserved, if the
back wages is enhanced from 50% to 75% of the full back wages,
which she was otherwise entitled.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
735
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The appellant was employed by the respondent
which is State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The
appellant was dismissed from service only on the report given by
the Tahasildar. There is no other charge against the appellant
regarding any kind of misconduct or misrepresentation. The
appellant relying on a caste certificate entitling her to be treated
as member of the Scheduled Caste secured employment. This
was put under a cloud. The doubt regarding her caste certificate
was fortified in favour of the respondent by the report of the
Tahasildar. It was, however, found that the Tahasildar was
incompetent to give such an opinion. The competent authority
has cleared the appellant and she stood vindicated by the view
expressed by the authority, which, in law, could possibly have
found as to which caste she belonged to. It is a case, therefore,
where the appellant was completely blameless in the matter. She
had to go through a long series of sittings even according to the
respondent which was held by way of enquiry and at the end of
the day though on the basis of decision of the Division Bench
which again she was constrained to appeal to, matter reached the
hands of the competent authority which conclusively and finally
found that she belonged to the Scheduled Caste which she always
professed she was a member of. At the same time, the respondent
has a case that the appellant did not specifically plead about her
being unemployed during the relevant period. It is also pointed
out that an attempt was made in the review which proved futile.
[Paras 7, 8][738-G-H; 739-D-E]
2. It is true that no work no pay is a principle which is
apposite in circumstances where the employee does not work
but it is not an absolute principle, which does not admit of
exceptions. The most important question is whether the employee
is at fault in any manner. If the employee is not at all at fault and
she was kept out of work by reasons of the decision taken by the
employer, then to deny the fruits of her being vindicated at the
end of the day would be unfair to the employee. In such
circumstances, no doubt, the question relating to alternative
GOWRAMMA C (DEAD) BY LRS v. MANAGER (PERSONNEL)
HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICAL LTD. & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
736
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
employment that the employee may have resorted

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.