Y.Yohannan Vs. State of
M.P.& Ors.  INSC 2237 (18 December 2008)
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7420 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 6147
of 2008 Y. Yohannan Appellant(s) Versus State of M.P. & Ors.. Respondent(s)
ORDER Leave granted.
This appeal is
directed against the judgment and final order dated October 09, 2007 passed by
a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh,
in Writ Appeal No. 173 of 2006. By the impugned order, the High Court, while
allowing the appeal, preferred by the appellant, in part, has directed that he
will be entitled to 25% of the back wages as against 50% of back wages awarded
by the learned Single Judge.
Since the controversy
in the appeal is confined to the question whether the appellate Bench was
justified in reducing the amount of back wages in an appeal preferred by the
appellant for further enhancement of the back wages, we deem it unnecessary to
state the facts in detail. It would suffice to note that while quashing the
order of compulsory retirement passed against the appellant, an Upper Division
Clerk in the Police Department, the learned Single Judge had directed his
reinstatement with payment of 50% of back wages.
Being aggrieved with
the direction for payment of back wages @ 50%, the appellant preferred
intra-Court appeal. The respondent State did not challenge the said order. As
noticed earlier, the appeal was partly allowed. The penultimate paragraph reads
with regard to back wages, as is manifest, has gone a sea- change. The earlier
view was that with the quashment of the order of termination consequent grant
of full back wages were a logical corollary.
Presently, as the law
has been enunciated, it would depend upon many a factor. A pragmatic view has
to be taken. The petitioner stood dismissed in the year 1989. Regard being had
to the facts and the circumstances in totality, the law in the field, the
financial crunch suffered by the State and keeping in view the concept of a
pragmatic approach, we are of the considered opinion that grant of 25% back
wages would meet the ends of justice.
In the result, the
writ appeal is allowed in part. We direct that the appellant would be entitled
to 25% of the back wages. The same shall be paid to him within a period of
three months hence. There shall be no order as to costs."
Thus, the appellate
bench held that the appellant shall be entitled to 25% of back wages. Aggrieved
by the said order, the appellant is before us.
We have heard learned
counsel for the parties.
appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the order passed by the
Division Bench, reducing the amount of back wages, as awarded by the learned
Single Judge, in an appeal preferred by the appellant is ex facie illegal,
particularly, when the State had not questioned the correctness of the order of
the learned Single Judge, awarding 50% back wages. It is also pointed out that
the back wages awarded by the learned Single Judge have already been paid to
the appellant. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State, on
the other hand, supported the order passed by the Division Bench.
We are of the opinion
that the order passed by the learned appellate bench cannot be sustained.
Admittedly, the State was not in appeal against the direction of the learned
Single Judge for payment of back wages at the rate of 50%. Therefore, in an
appeal preferred by the appellant for enhancement of the back wages, as awarded
by the learned Single Judge, there was no reason for the Division Bench to
reduce the back wages awarded by the learned Single Judge.
appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
There will, however,
be no order as to costs.
[D.K. JAIN ]