MULIN SHARMA versus STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 753 · Decided: 12-07-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 2 S.C.R. 753 
~ 
MULIN SHARMA 
v. 
STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 6119 of2016) 
JULY 12, 2016 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Service law: Back wages - Appellants case was that he was 
forced to submit resignation letter under compulsion and criminal 
intimidation by respondent no. 6 and his men - Courts below 
accepted the allegation and ordered reinstatement, however denied 
back wages - Appellant challenged non-grant of back wages -
Held: The facts and circumstances of the case clearly shoi<•ed that 
the resignation tendered by the appellant was not voluntary -
However, courts below categorically held and rightly so that the 
appellant was not entitled to back wages - Appellant had not 
produced any material to prove that he remained unemployed during 
that period - Since he did not attend the school during that period, 
he cannot be granted back wages for that period - He, however. 
should be reinstated in service and be given all other consequential 
benefits - Though he is not entitled to back wages, he is granted 
Rs. 25,000/-, in addition to the amount granted by the High Court, 
for wrongful denial of service. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The fact remains that the appellant did not perform 
his duties in the School at the behest of respondents. Similarly, 
the fact of he being unemployed throughout the period was not 
proved; no material evidence was placed on record for the same. 
In that case, single Judge of the High Court was having only the 
remedy of reinstatement of the appellant in the service and he 
ordered so after carefully examining that the resignation was not 
voluntary. In the facts and circumstances of the case, back wages 
should not have been awarded to the appellant. In several cases, 
this Court has held that payment of back wages is a discretionary 
power which has to be exercised by a court keeping in view the 
facts in their entirety and neither straitjacket fo~mula can be 
753 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
754 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A evolved nor a rule of universal application can be laid down in 
such cases. Thus, reinstatement does not necessarily result in 
payment of back wages which would be independent of 
reinstatement. While dealing with the prayer of back wages, 
factual scenario and the principles of justice, equity and good 
B 
conscience have to be kept in view by an appropriate court. The 
concurrent finding of the courts below that the appellant is not 
entilled to back wages in the absence of any material on record 
that he remained unemployed during the entire period from 
23.05.1998 to 16.08.1999 is correct. The appellant did not attend 
the school during that period and back wages cannot be granted 
C 
to him for that period. He, however, should be reinstated in 
service and be given all other consequential benefits. Though 
he is not entitled to back wages, he is certainly entitled to an 
amount of Rs. 25,000/-, in addition to the amount granted by the 
High Court, for wrongful denial of service. [Paras 7, 9, 11, 12] 
D 
[757-E, H, 758-A, D-G] 
E 
C.N. Malla vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. 
(2009) 9 SCC 597: 2009 (13) SCR 479 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
2009 (13) SCR 479 
relied on 
Para 10 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6119 of 
2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2012 of the High Court 
F 
ofGuwahati in W. A. No. 14 of2010. 
Ms. Aparna Jha, Adv. for the Appellant. 
Dr. Kai lash Chand, J. Chutiya, Avijit Roy, Ms. Kankana Arandhara 
(For M/s. Corporate Law Group) Advs. for the Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.K. AGRAWAL, J. I. Leave granted. 
H 
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 
25.07.2012 passed by the Gauhati High Court at Gauhati in Writ Appeal 
Nos. 14 of 20 I 0 and 226 of 2009 whereby the Division Bench of the 
MULIN SHARMA v. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS 
755 
[R.K. AGRAWAL, J.] 
High Court partly allowed Writ Appeal No. 14 of 2010 filed by the 
A 
appellant herein against the judgment and order dated 19.01.2007 passed 
by the learned single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 2357 
of 2004 and dismissed the Writ Appeal No. 226 of 2009 filed by the 
respondents herein. 
3. Brief facts: 
B 
(a)Mulin Sharma-the appellant herein, an M.A. in Sanskrit, was 
employed as an Assistant Teacher (Classical/Sanskrit) in the Rangsina 
High School, Karbi, Ang long District, Assam in the year 1995. The 

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