Service law: Back wages – Appellant was appointed as Staff Nurse with the respondent – Enquiry was held against her that she professed to belong to Scheduled Caste (SC) category but she did not belong to SC category – Tahasildar found that she did not belong the SC community – Single judge of High Court upheld the decision of Tahasildar – Disciplinary Authority dismissed her service on the basis of decision of Tahasildar – Appellant appealed against the decision of Single Judge – Division bench allowed the appeal and found that actually the power to rule on the caste status did not lie with the Tahasildar and directed Competent Authority to verify status – Competent Authority accepted the claim of appellant and she was reinstated without any consequential benefits – On writ petition, High Court directed inter alia 50% of back wages – In the instant appeal, appellant contended that denial of full back wages was not sustainable as she was not at fault – Held: Appellant was dismissed from service only on the report given by the Tahasildar – There was no other charge against her regarding any kind of misconduct or misrepresentation – Competent authority had cleared the appellant and she stood vindicated by the view expressed by the authority, which, in law, could possibly have found as to which caste she belonged to – It was a case, therefore, where the appellant was completely blameless in the matter – If the employee is not at all at fault and she was kept out of work by reasons of the decision taken by the employer, then to deny the fruits of her being vindicated at the end of the day would be unfair to the employee – Therefore, interests of justice, in the facts of this, would be subserved, if the back wages is enhanced from 50% to 75% of the full back wages, which she was otherwise entitled.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The appellant was employed by the respondent which is State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The appellant was dismissed from service only on the report given by the Tahasildar. There is no other charge against the appellant regarding any kind of misconduct or misrepresentation. The appellant relying on a caste certificate entitling her to be treated as member of the Scheduled Caste secured employment. This was put under a cloud. The doubt regarding her caste certificate was fortified in favour of the respondent by the report of the Tahasildar. It was, however, found that the Tahasildar was incompetent to give such an opinion. The competent authority has cleared the appellant and she stood vindicated by the view expressed by the authority, which, in law, could possibly have found as to which caste she belonged to. It is a case, therefore, where the appellant was completely blameless in the matter. She had to go through a long series of sittings even according to the respondent which was held by way of enquiry and at the end of the day though on the basis of decision of the Division Bench which again she was constrained to appeal to, matter reached the hands of the competent authority which conclusively and finally found that she belonged to the Scheduled Caste which she always professed she was a member of. At the same time, the respondent has a case that the appellant did not specifically plead about her being unemployed during the relevant period. It is also pointed out that an attempt was made in the review which proved futile. [Paras 7, 8][738-G-H; 739-D-E]
2. It is true that no work no pay is a principle which is apposite in circumstances where the employee does not work but it is not an absolute principle, which does not admit of exceptions. The most important question is whether the employee is at fault in any manner. If the employee is not at all at fault and she was kept out of work by reasons of the decision taken by the employer, then to deny the fruits of her being vindicated at the end of the day would be unfair to the employee. In such circumstances, no doubt, the question relating to alternative employment that the employee may have resorted to, becomes relevant. There is also the aspect of discretion which is exercised by the Court keeping in view the facts of each case. This is a case where apart from the charge of the employee having produced false caste certificate, there is no other charge. Therefore, interests of justice, in the facts of this, would be subserved, if the back wages is enhanced from 50% to 75% of the full back wages, which she was otherwise entitled. [Paras 9, 12][739-E; 741-F-H]
State of Kerala v. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai 2007 (6) SCC
524 : [2007] 5 SCR 251; P.V.K. Distillery Ltd. v. Mahendra Ram 2009 (5) SC 705; Canara Bank v.
Damodar Govind Idoorkar 2009 (4) SCC 323 : [2009]
4 SCR 586; Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and Others 2013
(10) SCC 324 : [2013] 9 SCR 1 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.