Court No. - 55
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 484 of 2011 Appellant :- State Of U.P. And Others Respondent :- Parash Nath Singh Counsel for Appellant :- S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- R.N.Tripathi
Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Case has been taken up in the revised call.
No one is present on behalf of the respondent although the name of Sri R.N. Tripathi, learned Advocate, is presented from the side of respondent.
Heard Sri Chandan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-appellants.
The present appeal challenges the order dated 25.8.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has directed payment of arrears of salary for the period the petitioner was terminated.
The petition was filed with the averments that on account of revolt in PAC in the year 1973, the services of the petitioner, who was a Constable, were terminated along with various other persons. The termination order was challenged by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16216 of 1997 which was allowed vide judgement dated 09.1.2003 with the direction that the petitioner be reinstated back in service. At the time of decision, the question of payment of back wages was left open in view of the statement made before the Court that the State Government is in the process of taking a decision with regard to the payment of the back wages. The State Government took a decision on 15.4.2004 not to pay the salary on the basis of 'No Work No Pay'. This decision of the State Government was challenged by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37040 of 2006 which was decided by means of the impugned order dated 25.8.2009.
Sri Chandan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-appellants, has filed a supplementary affidavit bringing on record the judgement of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2816 of 2007 wherein the Apex Court, while dealing with issue of back wages recorded that the respondents therein would not be entitled to back wages.
It is relevant to record when this present appeal was entertained this Court had passed the following order :
"Admit.
List for hearing in the Ist week of January 2012.
Till then the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed provided the appellant deposits the entire back wages with the Registrar General of this Court within thirty days from today. The Registrar General shall invest the said amount in a fixed deposit which shall be subject to the result of the appeal."
The State, aggrieved against the said order dated 17.10.2011, preferred SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLP (C) No. 32127 of 2011 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 7.12.2011 had stayed the operation of the impugned interim order dated 17.10.2011. The SLP (C) No. 32127 of 2011 was tagged with SLP (C) No. 28426 of 2011 and the said SLP (C) No. 28426 of 2011 was converted into Civil Appeal No. 2816 of 2007 and finally decided vide judgement dated 17.12.2009.
In the backdrop of said decision, Sri Chandan Kumar, counsel for the State-appellants, submits that the impugned order, passed by learned Single Judge, is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed.
Considering the averments made at the bar as well as the final conclusion of the Apex Court in its judgement dated 17.12.2009 the matter is settled insofar as it relates to back wages and thus the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed.
The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Puspendra .
(Pankaj Bhatia,J.) (Vikram Nath,J.)