Sarita
Thakur Vs. Union of India [1993] INSC 361 (17 September 1993)
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
ORDER
1.
Special leave granted.
2.
Heard. These two appeals are filed by the appellants, namely, the Committee of
Management, Jai Sita Ram Kisan Intermediate College, Jhinjhana, District Muzaffarnagar
and the Manager, Jai Sita Ram Kisan Intermediate College, against the judgment
and order of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition
No. 10946, which was partly allowed, and Writ Petition No. 8929 of 198 1, which
was dismissed.
3.The
High Court arrived at its conclusion on an interpretation of Regulation 26 of
Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education
Act. The said regulation reads thus:
"26.
(1) The services of a permanent employee may be terminated by giving him three
months' notice or three months' pay in lieu thereof on the ground of the
abolition of the post which the employee is holding. The abolition may be due
to one of the following reasons:
(a)
Retrenchment decided upon for reasons of financial stringency.
(b)
Abolition of subject.
(c)
Abolition of section or class.
(2)For
the purpose of computing the period of notice mentioned in clause (1) or for
determining the amount to be paid in lieu thereof the period of summer vacation
shall be excluded."
4. The
High Court held that the order terminating the services of the first respondent
(before us), passed by the appellants, was invalid because it was not in
accordance with the said regulation. The High Court ordered:
"As
held by the Deputy Director of Education, Meerut, it will be open to the Management of the College to terminate the
services of the petitioner afresh by giving him three months' notice or three
months' pay in lieu thereof.
Till
such a notice or pay in lieu thereof is given, the petitioner is + Arising out
of SLP (Civil) Nos. 16836-37 of 1991 395 entitled to continue in service and he
is also entitled for payment of salary. The payment of arrears of salary shall
be made within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy
of this order before the Committee of Management of the College and the
District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar.
In
case the notice of three months or pay of three months in lieu thereof has not
yet been given, petitioner will be paid the salary as and when it falls due
regularly till such notice or pay is given to him." 5.We have heard
learned counsel for all the parties at length. We are unableto agree with the
contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. We are of the view that the
impugned judgment of the High Court is correct and does not warrant any
interference.
6.As
set out by the High Court, we direct the appellants to give to the first
respondent forthwith a notice of termination of his services in accordance with
the said regulation. Regarding payment of arrears of salary, we direct the
appellants to pay to the first respondent a consolidated sum of Rs 2,00,000
(Rupees Two lakhs) within a period of six months from today. Mr Satish Chandra,
learned counsel for the first respondent, fairly agrees and accepts the said
sum in full and final satisfaction of past arrears of salary till the date of
payment. The said payment of Rs 2,00,000 shall be staggered between the period
July 1972 till the date of payment for the purpose of income tax and the first
respondent shall be entitled to the appropriate relief.
7.The
order of the High Court is modified to the above extent and the appeals are
disposed of accordingly. No costs.
SARITA
THAKUR V. UNION OF INDIA
ORDER
1.
Delay condoned.
2.
Special leave granted.
3.
Heard counsel on both sides. While the tribunal has not allowed back wages by
its order dated 24-7-1991 but directed reinstatement of the appellant in
service, it appears that the Union of India took its own time to reinstate her
+ Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10473 of 1993 396 even though the Union's petition
for special leave was dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellant contends
that the tribunal ought to have awarded back wages but we do not propose to
entertain that contention. However, his contention that it was obligatory on
the Union to reinstate the appellant within a
reasonable time after the tribunal's order of 24-7-1991 is well-founded. We see no reason why the Union of India
failed to carry out the terms of the tribunal's order even after the special
leave petition was rejected. We can understand that the Union of India would
take some reasonable time for reinstating the petitioner in pursuance of the
tribunal's order but we are not able to understand why it failed to do so till
almost the end of 1992. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellant is
entitled to back wages from August, 1991 till actual reinstatement.
4. In
the result we allow this appeal to the aforesaid limited extent and direct that
the appellant will be paid back wages from 1-8-1991 till actual reinstatement within
three months from today. The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly with no
order as to costs.
Back
