RAM ASHRAY SINGH AND ANR. versus RAM BUX SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 1029 · Decided: 11-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAM ASH RAY SINGH AND ANR. 
A 
RAM BUX SINGH AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 11. 2003 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJ!T PASAY AT, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: UP. Intermediate Education Act, 1921; ·Chapter Ill, 
Regulation 21: Termination of service of a Lab Assistant-Appeal and 
representation rejected by azuhority--High Court in 1vrit proceedings directed C 
payment of compensation and observed that employee had no aptitude for 
service-Al/01ving the en1p/oyee 's appeal, Division bench directed his 
reinstaternent and granted all retiral benefits-On appeal, Held: In vietti of 
set/led position in law and earlier finding of High Court about lack of aptitude 
for service and absence C?f sincerity towards work by the employee, ends of 
justice 1vould be served by pay111ent of compensation only-Directions issued D 
Services of Respondent No.I, a Lab Assistant (employee), were 
terminated by the Principal of the School after conducting disciplinary 
proceedings. Appeal against the termination order was dismissed by the 
management. The employee filed representation belatedly which was 
rejected by the authority. Writ Petition filed by him was disposed of by 
the High Court directing payment of compensation, as it noticed that the 
employee had no aptitude for service. Aggrieved, the employee filed review 
petition as well as SLP. Dismissing the review petition, High Court directed 
compliance of its earlier direction and also directed payment of interest 
E 
on the compensation amount. The SLP was dismissed as the special appeal F 
before High Court was pending. In the meanwhile, employee reached the 
age of superannuation. Division Bench of the High Court allowed the 
special appeal; directed reinstatement of the employee and 'grant of retiral 
benefits. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. When fixing the back wages several factors need to be 
noted. It is a well-settled position in law that on reinstatement there is no 
automatic entitlement to full back wages. 
1029 
G 
H 
1030 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
12003] I S.C.R. 
A 
Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd v. The Employees of.1\1/s. Hindu.l'llm Tin 
lt'orks Pvt. Ltd and Ors., If 97912 SCC 80 and P.G.!. oll\1edical Education 
and Research. Chandigarh v. Raj Kumar. 120011 2 SCC 54, relied on. 
11032-D-EI 
1.2. In the instant case, there was no clrnllengc to the order of 
. B termination for six years. Some time was lost because the State and its 
functionaries on the one hand and the appellant on the other differed on 
the issue as to who was liable to make the payment in terms of the first 
).--
direction of the High Court. It cannot also be lost sight of that the High 
Court while fixing certain sum to be paid in terms of its earlier order 
C recorded a finding about lack of aptitude of the employee and the 
likelihood of absence in sincerity of work. Taking all these aspects into 
consideration, ends of justice would be best served if the appellants are 
directed to pay a sum of Rs. 35,000. as compensation in addition to what 
has already been paid. (1033-E-F] 
+ 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5688 of2000. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.1999 in SA 42/99 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. 
T.N. Singh, S.N. Singh and V.K. Singh for the Appellants. 
Respondent No. I in-person, Alka Agrawal and Ajay K. Agrawal for 
the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. In this appeal challenge is to judgment of the 
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The dispute relates to entitlement . 
of service and retiral benefits· of respondent No. I (hereinafter referred to as 
'the employee'). 
G 
Factual background in a nutshell is as follows: 
Respondent No. I-employee was employed as Lab. Assistant, a class IV 
post, on 1.2.1973. On 8.11.1977 a show-cause notice was served on him 
detailing eight charges. By order dated 11.2.1978, his services were terminated 
by the then Principal holding that the charges were fully proved. Against the 
+ 
order of termination an appeal was preferred which was dismissed by the 
H Committee of Management. After about 6 years the employee filed a 
~ ~ 
_.. 
• 
-" 
"' 
R.A. SINGl-I v. R.B. SJNGl-I fARIJIT PASAYAT. !.] 
] 031 
representation before the prescribed authority under Regulation 21 of Chapter A 
Ill framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The same was 
dismissed by the District Inspector of Schools. A writ petition was f

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