M.L. BINJOLKAR versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 765 · Decided: 21-07-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

M.L. BINJOLKAR 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
JULY 21, 2005 
[ARIJITPASAYAT AND H.K. SEMA,JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Back wages-Appropriate quantum of-Re-instatement of employees 
setting aside order of compulsory retirement-Employees joining back and C 
retiring on attaining age of superannuation-Grant of 50% back wages-
Justification of-Held: Grant of sull back wages is no longer natural corollary 
of re-instatement order-Appropriate quantum of back wages depends on 
number of factors-Court has to consider pros and cons of each case-On 
facts, grant of 50% back wages by High Court justified-Also no need to D 
examin~ order of compulsory retirement on merits. 
Compulsory retirement-Purpose and object of-Stated. 
Order of compulsory retirement was passed against number of 
employees. Tribunal set aside the order and directed their reinstatement with E 
full back wages. State filed writ petitions. High Court dismissed the petitions 
and permitted the State to take fresh action. Thereafter, order of compulsory 
retirement ·was passed but from an earlier date. Tribunal again set aside the 
order and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits. Aggrieved 
employees challenged the order and with regard to four employees, High Court 
found that the orders of compulsory retirement was not justified and directed F 
re-instatement. In the meantime, the employees retired on attaining age of 
superannuation and High Court granted them 50% back wages. Hence the 
cross appeals. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The four employees after reinstatement had, in fact, ioined 
back service and have retired on reaching the age of superannuation. 
Therefore, examination in their cases as to the correctness of the view 
expressed by the High Court would be an exercise in futility. \768-BI 
765 
G 
H 
766 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
1.2. With regard to the issue of back wages there are two periods 
involved. The first was from the date of compulsory retirement upto the High -
Court's order dismissing the writ petitions filed by the State while permitting 
fresh action. Tribunal had directed that the employees were to be paid full 
back wages. High Court did-not interfere with that part of the order. As such 
B the High Court's direction for payment of 50% of the back wages does not 
appear to be correct Rest of the period relates to the period upto the impugned 
order of High Court. Though the High Court did not specifically deal with 
the question as to what would be the appropriate quantum, in view of the law 
laid down that the grant of back wages would depend upon several factors and 
the Court has to weigh the pros and cons of each case and to take a pragmatic 
C view, it is not appropriate to interfere with the quantum of 50% fixed by the 
High Court. (768-G, ff; 769-A, DJ 
Hindustan Motors Ltd v. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya and Anr., (2002] 
6 SCC 41; Rajendra Prasad Aryav. State o/Bihar, (2000) 9 SCC 514; Sonepat 
Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd v. Ajit Singh. (2005] 3 SCC 232; Haryana State 
D Cooperative Land Development Bank v. Nee/am, (2005) 5 SCC 91; Manager, 
Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore v. S. Mani and Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 100 and 
.. Allahabad Jal Sansthan v. Daya Shankar Rai and Anr., (20051 5 SCC 124, 
relied on. 
E 
CIVIi: APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8662 of2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.3.2002 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court at Jabalpur in W.P.No. 7142 of2000. 
WITH 
F 
C.A. Nos. 8677, 8679, 8695, 8697, 8663,/2002 and 4542 of2003. 
G 
Prakash Shrivastava, for the Appellant in C.A.Nos. 8662, 8677, 8679/ 
2002 & 4542/2003 & Respondent in C.A.Nos. 8695, 8696, 8663 & 8697 of2002. 
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija for State of M.P. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. These eight appeals, four by employee, who were 
compulsorily retired and four by the the State of Madhya Pradesh have that 
matrix in a judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur disposing of 
H several writ petitions filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh. Challenge in all 
,.. 
M.L. BINJOLKAR v. STATEOFM.P. [PASAYAT,J.] 
767 
these writ petitions was to the order passed by the Madhya Pradesh State A 
Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (in short 'the Tribunal'). 
A brief reference to the factual background is necessary. 
559 employees were given compulsory retirement by orders dated 
01.10.1997. Some of the employees who were given compulsory retirement B 
questioned correct
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.