THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. versus BALIRAM SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 45 · Decided: 29-10-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
45
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
v.
BALIRAM SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 10806 of 2018)
OCTOBER 29, 2018
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.]
Service Law – Back Wages – Respondents appointed as Adult
Education Supervisors – Posts of Adult Education Supervisor
abolished – Challenge to – Appellants appointed the respondents
in the Non-Formal Education Scheme – Said scheme abolished w.e.f.
1st April, 2001 – Respondents terminated – Policy decision by State
Government on 20th May, 2005 to adjust all the retrenched employees
– Respondents appointed pursuant to the letter dated 16th March,
2007 – Writ petition filed by respondents for direction against the
appellants to make payment of salary to them for the period from
1st October, 2001 till 3rd July, 2007 and also to give continuity of
past services to the respondents taking into account the same period
– Writ petition allowed – On appeal, held: Respondents neither
challenged the termination order after closure of the Non-Formal
Education Scheme w.e.f. 1st April, 2001 nor the policy dated 20th
May, 2005 under which they were appointed or the appointment
letter dated 16th March, 2007 – They chose to file the subject writ
petition only in 2013 and thus, it suffers from laches – Even the
appointment letter dtd. 16th March, 2007 stated that the appointment
was a fresh appointment and the past services would be reckoned
only for the purpose of grant of pension and nothing more –
Respondents acted upon such terms and conditions of appointment
without any demurrer – Unless the respondents are reinstated in
their previous post (held prior to 1st April, 2001), the question of
awarding back-wages would not arise at all – Relief of back-wages
is and can be linked only to the order of reinstatement – It cannot
be awarded in isolation or during the period when the respondents
were not in employment at all – Respondents not entitled to the reliefs
as claimed.
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 45
45
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
46
                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The respondents neither challenged the
termination order after closure of the Non-Formal Education
Scheme w.e.f. 1st April, 2001 nor the policy dated 20th May, 2005
under which they have been appointed or the appointment letter
dated 16th March, 2007. Even the appointment letter dated 16th
March, 2007 unambiguously predicates that the appointment was
a fresh appointment and the past services would be reckoned
only for the purpose of grant of pension and nothing more. The
respondents acted upon such terms and conditions of
appointment without any demurrer. Unless the respondents are
to be reinstated in their previous post (held prior to 1st April,
2001), the question of awarding back-wages would not arise at
all. The relief of back-wages is and can be linked only to the
order of reinstatement. It cannot be awarded in isolation or during
the period when the respondents were not in employment at all.
[Para 18][64-A-D]
1.2 A fortiori, the writ petition filed by the respondents was
devoid of merits for more than one reason. First, it suffers from
laches since it came to be filed only in the year 2013. Second,
there is no challenge to the termination w.e.f. 1st April, 2001 and
including the policy dated 20th May, 2005, or to the terms and
conditions of appointment letter dated 16th March, 2007. No order
of reinstatement could be passed in favour of the respondents
and sans such an order, the respondents cannot be bestowed with
back-wages for the period during which they were not in the
employment of the appellants and also because they did not work
during that period. Third, the scheme in respect of which the
respondents were employed on temporary basis was closed w.e.f.
1st April, 2001. No order of reinstatement could be made much
less of back-wages for the period subsequent thereto and until
the engagement of the respondents on 16th March, 2007 in a new
post. If the scheme in which they were employed has been
abolished, by no stretch of imagination can the court direct
payment of back-wages for the period after abolition of the
scheme w.e.f. 1st April, 2001. Fourth, the principle of ‘no work,
no pay’ would disentitle the respondents from the relief of back-
wages. Fifth, the decision in Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra case, is
distinguishable on facts and, in any case, a relief wrongly granted
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
47
to the petitioner therein cannot be the basis to grant simi

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