2005 JTR(SC) 1116
2005 AIR(Jhar)(R) 2424 ; 2005 AIR(SC) 3476 ; 2005 AIR(SCW) 4579 ; 2005 AllLJ 180 ; 2006 1 AllMR(SC) 137 ; 2005 6 AWC 5157 ; 2005 107 FLR 256 ; 2005 8 JT 290 ; 2005 LIC 4256 ; 2005 3 LLJ 1121 ; 2005 4 LLN 369 ; 2006 2 MLJ 169 ; 2005 4 RCR(Civ) 217 ; 2006 2 RLW(Raj) 948 ; 2005 7 Scale 235 ; 2005 7 SCC 406 ; 2006 SCC(L&S) 67 ; 2005 6 SCJ 611 ; 2005 SCR 1092 ; 2005 4 SCT 207 ; 2005 5 SLR 828 ; 2005 KHC 1401 ; 2005 6 Supreme 191
2005(6) Supreme 191
Supreme Court of India
(From Rajasthan High Court)
Arijit Pasayat & H.K. Sema, JJ.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation —Appellant
versus
Shyam Bihari Lal Gupta —Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1829 of 2004
Decided on 31-8-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Sushil Kumar Jain, A.P. Dhamija, Ram Niwas, Sarad Singhania and H.D. Thanvi, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Anis Ahmed Khan, Advocate.
Important point
Where Civil Court set aside order of termination of service holding order to be void ab initio and non-est and that plaintiff would be in continuity of service, employee could not claim back wages in execution of decree in absence of relief of back wages granted by Court.
Act Referred :SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The Service Law governs the present appeal concerning the legality of an order of termination passed by the appellant-Corporation, where the respondent challenged the same before the Single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, and further filed execution applications for back wages. The decreed relief was limited to a declaration that the termination was void ab-initio and non est, without any specific monetary benefits, and the subsequent execution proceedings for a later period were contested on the ground that mere continuity of service does not automatically entitle the employee to back wages or increments notionally earned during unauthorized absence in the absence of a specific direction in the decree or a clear statutory mandate under the Service Law.
(B) Key legal principles include that an order of reinstatement accompanied by continuity of service does not necessarily confer the right to back wages or increments notionally earned during the period of absence without a specific direction, and where a decree contains only declaratory relief without any monetary benefit, execution courts are not justified in granting back wages. (
Facts of the case:
The respondent filed a suit challenging the termination, which was decreed declaring the termination void ab-initio and non est, and while two execution applications for salary were partly granted, the execution for a subsequent period was denied by the Corporation, arguing no back wages were decreed, a plea rejected by the executing court and the High Court.) (
Findings of Court:
The High Courts order is set aside as it was not supported by law, since the decree contained no specific direction for monetary benefits, and the principles laid down in similar precedents indicate that mere declaratory relief does not automatically entitle the employee to back wages for periods of unauthorized absence.) (
Issues:
Whether an employee declared to be in continuity of service under a void ab-initio termination decree is automatically entitled to back wages for periods of unauthorized absence when the decree contains no specific direction for monetary benefits.) (
Ratio Decidendi:
The mere declaration that termination is void ab-initio and continuity of service is restored does not, without a specific direction, confer a right to back wages or increments notionally earned during periods of alleged unauthorized absence, as monetary benefits must be specifically decreed.) (
Result:
The appeal is allowed and the impugned High Court order is set aside with no costs.)
(A) The Service Law governs the present appeal concerning the legality of an order of termination passed by the appellant-Corporation, where the respondent challenged the same before the Single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, and further filed execution applications for back wages. The decreed relief was limited to a declaration that the termination was void ab-initio and non est, without any specific monetary benefits, and the subsequent execution proceedings for a later period were contested on the ground that mere continuity of service does not automatically entitle the employee to back wages or increments notionally earned during unauthorized absence in the absence of a specific direction in the decree or a clear statutory mandate under the Service Law.
(B) Key legal principles include that an order of reinstatement accompanied by continuity of service does not necessarily confer the right to back wages or increments notionally earned during the period of absence without a specific direction, and where a decree contains only declaratory relief without any monetary benefit, execution courts are not justified in granting back wages. (
Facts of the case:
The respondent filed a suit challenging the termination, which was decreed declaring the termination void ab-initio and non est, and while two execution applications for salary were partly granted, the execution for a subsequent period was denied by the Corporation, arguing no back wages were decreed, a plea rejected by the executing court and the High Court.) (
Findings of Court:
The High Courts order is set aside as it was not supported by law, since the decree contained no specific direction for monetary benefits, and the principles laid down in similar precedents indicate that mere declaratory relief does not automatically entitle the employee to back wages for periods of unauthorized absence.) (
Issues:
Whether an employee declared to be in continuity of service under a void ab-initio termination decree is automatically entitled to back wages for periods of unauthorized absence when the decree contains no specific direction for monetary benefits.) (
Ratio Decidendi:
The mere declaration that termination is void ab-initio and continuity of service is restored does not, without a specific direction, confer a right to back wages or increments notionally earned during periods of alleged unauthorized absence, as monetary benefits must be specifically decreed.) (
Result:
The appeal is allowed and the impugned High Court order is set aside with no costs.)
Order
Arijit Pasayat, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench.
2. Factual position in a nutshell is as follows:
Challenging the order of termination passed by the appellant-Corporation, the respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Employee’) filed a suit for declaration that the termination is bad. The suit was decreed on 03.05.1987. It was held that the order of termination was void ab-initio and non est and that the plaintiff-respondent is in continuity of service of the Corporation. The respondent-employee filed two execution applications. The first one was for salary for the period from January, 1982 to May, 1987. The subsequent execution application was for salary from July, 1987 to March, 1988. It is only the legality of the execution proceedings for the period from April, 1988 to March, 1997 which is in dispute. According to the appellant-Corporation, there was no direction for back wages and merely because the plaintiff managed to get some amount by executing a decree for the previous period, that will not entitle him in law to get back wages for a period during which he had not worked and there was nothing in the decree so far as back wages are concerned. The plea was not accepted by the executing court and the revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘the CPC’) was also rejected by the High Court by the impugned order.
3. According to learned counsel for the appellant- Corporation, the decree is absolutely silent so far as the back wages are concerned. The decree in essence contains only a declaratory relief without any consequential payment for monetary benefits. That being so, the executing court and the High Court were not justified in granting the relief sought for. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that when the decree clearly indicated that the termination was illegal non est, as a natural corollary, the plaintiff was entitled to the back wages.
4. In an almost identical case, this Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs. Ladulal Mali (1996(8) SCC 37) held that the decree does not contain payment of back wages. Only declaratory relief of the nature granted in the present case was granted. Further, in A.P.S.R.T.C. and Anr. Vs. S. Narsaqoud (2003(2) SCC 212), in paragraph-9, this Court held as follows:
“9. We find merit in the submission so made. There is a difference between an order of reinstatement accompanied by a simple direction for continuity of service and a direction where reinstatement is accompanied by a specific direction that the employee shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, which necessarily flow from reinstatement or accompanied by a specific direction that the employee shall be entitled to the benefit of the increments earning during the period of absence. In our opinion, the employee after having been held guilty of unauthorized absence from duty cannot claim the benefit of increments notionally earned during the period of unauthorized absence in the absence of a specific direction in that regard and merely because he has been directed to be reinstated with the benefit of continuity in service.”
5. Of course, the above noted case related to the question of granting increments notionally. But the principles laid down relating to specific non-mention about any monetary benefit is relevant. As was noted in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation’s case (supra), there was no decree for grant of any monetary benefits.
6. Above being the position, the High Court’s order cannot be maintained and is set aside. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. No costs.
Appeal allowed.