PRINCIPAL, AYURVEDIC COLLEGE AND ORS. versus SUSHIL CHANDRA MISRA AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 863 · Decided: 23-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

PRINCIPAL, A YURVEDIC COLLEGE AND ORS. 
v. 
SIJSHIL CHANDRA MISRA AND ANR. 
MAY 23, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Service law : 
Termination of Services-Claim for reinstatement-On facts, held, 
A 
B 
since the employee has already superannuated, question of reinstatement 
C 
does not arise-The delay involved in the litigation cannot be attributed to 
either the employer or the employee-Ends of justice would be met if the 
employee is paid 50% of th~ salary from 30.11.1987 till date of 
Superannuation. 
Respondent No.1 was appointed as a lecturer in 'Science subject' 
in an Ayurvedic College. In 1971-72, the Science section was closed 
down and the post of lecturer in science was abolished, and the services 
of respondent No.t were terminated vide order dated 6.6.1972. Against. 
D 
the termination order, Respondent No.I made a representation on 
28.8.1972. On 10.10.1974, the college was taken over by the Government 
E 
and employees of the college were asked to submit option within 3 
months for continuing in Government service. On 2.7.1977, Government 
terminated the services of respondent No.I from 10.1.1975 as he had not 
given any option to join the Government service and further directed 
appellants to pay salary to respondent No. I for the period starting from 
F 
6.6.1972 to 9.1.1975. Respondent No.I made a claim petition to the 
Tribunal in I981 against the order of termination communicated to him 
on 2.7.1977. Vide Order dated 30.ll.I987, Tribunal allowed the claim 
petition. Appellants unsuccessfully filed writ petition before High Court. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Respondent no. I is not entitled for reinstatement as 
directed by the Tribunal or the High Court since he has already retired 
. 
G 
on superannuation. [867-G] 
H 
863 
A 
B 
864 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
1.2. Both the parties are litigating in court for all these years. 
Therefore, the delay cannot be attributed to either parties. Therefore, 
applying the principle of'no work no pay', 50% of the salary is ordered 
to be paid to respondent no. I which would meet the ends of justice. 
Therefore, Appellants are directed to pay to respondent no. I the salary 
from 30.I l.1987 till the date of superannuation. It is clarified that he 
would not be entitled to make a claim by way of salary etc. for any 
further promotion etc. The Government may also consider whether any 
pension is payable to respondent no. I because the college is now taken 
over by the State Government. The Government is directed to consider 
the same and pass appropriate orders accordingly. The Government 
C shall pay the salary to the respondent within three months from today. 
The Government may also consider the question of payment of pension 
within the above said period. [867-C-F[ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6527 of 
D 
2005. 
E 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.4.2004 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Allahabad Lucknow Bench in W.P. No. 3920 (SIB) of 1989. 
Pramod Swarup for Jatinder Kumar Bhatia Adv., for the Appellants. 
Sudhir Kulshreshtha Adv., for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. : Heard both sides. 
The appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dt. 
07.04.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow 
Bench, Lucknow in Writ Petition No.3920 of 1989 whereby the High Court 
has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants herein. The first 
appellant is the Principal, Ayurvedic College, District Pilibhit (U.P.) and the 
G 
second appellant is the Director of Ayurvedic and Unani Services, Lucknow 
(U.P.). The third appellant is the State of U.P. through Collector, Pilibhit, 
District Pilibhit (U.P.). The respondent No. I was appointed as Science 
demonstrator in Lalit Hari Ayurvedic college, Pilibhit (U.P.). In the year 
1966, the District Magistrate was appointed as a Receiver in the College. 
H 
Thereafter, all the appointments and removal of teacher was required to be 
... 
PRINCIPAL, AYURVEDIC COLLEGE AND ORS. v. S.C. MISRA AND ANR. (LAKSHMANAN, J.] 
865 
done by the Receiver, i.e., the District Magistrate. On 19.11.1967, respondent 
No. I was subsequently appointed as lecturer in science subject by the District 
Magistrate. He completed his probation of two years and was confirmed as 
a lecturer in science subject. The science section in the college was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.