Governing Council Anjuman Arts, Commerce & Science Vs. Sayyed Mohammad Shafi
 INSC 27 (8
N.P. (J) Singh N.P. (J) Ahmadi A.M. (Cj) Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J)
1996 SCC (1) 718 JT 1996 (1) 111 1996 SCALE (1)142
O R D
have heard the counsel for both the parties. This appeal is directed against
the order of the Civil Judge, Bijapur passed on October 29, 1991 and confirmed by the High Court in the impugned order made
on 5.4.1993 in CRP No.3565/91.
The facts are clearly not in dispute. The service of the respondent was
terminated which order was ultimately set aside. The order has merged with
dismissal of the special leave petition by this Court on July 31, 1989. This Court observed thus:
Management may move the Government for reimbursement of the salary paid to
respondent No. 1 and the Government will decide that question according to law
and in the light of the stand taken by the University.
proceedings for contempt, it was held by the Division Bench that normally the
arrears of salary accrue to a person whose termination of service is set aside,
but payment depends upon other factors as well. In the absence of a clear
direction while issuing that writ, it is not possible to hold that the refusal
to pay the arrears of salary would be an act of contempt. Setting aside an
order of dismissal creates a cause of action of claim arrears of salary. But in
such case where no direction was given for the intervening period, payment of
salary need not be ordered, as held by this Court in Managing Direction U.P. Warehousing
Corporation & Ors. vs. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee [AIR 1980 SC 840].
it would appeal that the respondent had moved an execution application in the
District Court to give effect to the order of the Tribunal which is envisaged
under the Rules. Since the executing Court rejected the claim, the respondent
went in revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure which was
dismissed in the impugned order dated April 5, 1993 in CMP No. 3565/91 by the Karnataka
High Court. Pending the special leave petition, an enquiry whether the
respondent was gainfully employed was conducted and it was found that he was
contended by the counsel for the respondent that this appeal has become infructuous.
We cannot conclude on that premise since the respondent is claiming back-wages.
should be a finding in that behalf. Accordingly, we held that the respondent is
not entitled to the back-wages.
as the reinstatement is concerned, it is not convassed by the learned counsel
for the appellant that he is not entitled for the reinstatement due to the fact
that the order of dismissal was set aside and had became final.
respondent is entitled to the payment of admitted salary from the date of
reinstatement. We do not propose to express any opinion on other consequential
benefits since the same is to be worked out in the light of the judgment of the
Tribunal which was upheld by this Court. If the admitted salary from the date
of reinstatement is not paid, the same is directed to be paid within a period
of six months from the date of the receipt of this order.
appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.