Service Law – Back Wages – Respondents appointed as Adult Education Supervisors – Posts of Adult Education Supervisor abolished – Challenge to – Appellants appointed the respondents in the Non-Formal Education Scheme – Said scheme abolished w.e.f. 1st April, 2001 – Respondents terminated – Policy decision by State Government on 20th May, 2005 to adjust all the retrenched employees – Respondents appointed pursuant to the letter dated 16th March, 2007 – Writ petition filed by respondents for direction against the appellants to make payment of salary to them for the period from 1st October, 2001 till 3rd July, 2007 and also to give continuity of past services to the respondents taking into account the same period – Writ petition allowed – On appeal, held: Respondents neither challenged the termination order after closure of the Non-Formal Education Scheme w.e.f. 1st April, 2001 nor the policy dated 20th May, 2005 under which they were appointed or the appointment letter dated 16th March, 2007 – They chose to file the subject writ petition only in 2013 and thus, it suffers from laches – Even the appointment letter dtd. 16th March, 2007 stated that the appointment was a fresh appointment and the past services would be reckoned only for the purpose of grant of pension and nothing more – Respondents acted upon such terms and conditions of appointment without any demurrer – Unless the respondents are reinstated in their previous post (held prior to 1st April, 2001), the question of awarding back-wages would not arise at all – Relief of back-wages is and can be linked only to the order of reinstatement – It cannot be awarded in isolation or during the period when the respondents were not in employment at all – Respondents not entitled to the reliefs as claimed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The respondents neither challenged the termination order after closure of the Non-Formal Education Scheme w.e.f. 1st April, 2001 nor the policy dated 20th May, 2005 under which they have been appointed or the appointment letter dated 16th March, 2007. Even the appointment letter dated 16th March, 2007 unambiguously predicates that the appointment was a fresh appointment and the past services would be reckoned only for the purpose of grant of pension and nothing more. The respondents acted upon such terms and conditions of appointment without any demurrer. Unless the respondents are to be reinstated in their previous post (held prior to 1 st April, 2001), the question of awarding back-wages would not arise at all. The relief of back-wages is and can be linked only to the order of reinstatement. It cannot be awarded in isolation or during the period when the respondents were not in employment at all. [Para 18][64-A-D]
1.2 A fortiori, the writ petition filed by the respondents was devoid of merits for more than one reason. First, it suffers from laches since it came to be filed only in the year 2013. Second, there is no challenge to the termination w.e.f. 1st April, 2001 and including the policy dated 20th May, 2005, or to the terms and conditions of appointment letter dated 16th March, 2007. No order of reinstatement could be passed in favour of the respondents and sans such an order, the respondents cannot be bestowed with back-wages for the period during which they were not in the employment of the appellants and also because they did not work during that period. Third, the scheme in respect of which the respondents were employed on temporary basis was closed w.e.f. 1st April, 2001. No order of reinstatement could be made much less of back-wages for the period subsequent thereto and until the engagement of the respondents on 16th March, 2007 in a new post. If the scheme in which they were employed has been abolished, by no stretch of imagination can the court direct payment of back-wages for the period after abolition of the scheme w.e.f. 1st April, 2001. Fourth, the principle of ‘no work, no pay’ would disentitle the respondents from the relief of backwages. Fifth, the decision in Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra case, is distinguishable on facts and, in any case, a relief wrongly granted to the petitioner therein cannot be the basis to grant similar relief to the respondents herein, which is not in conformity with the extant regulations or policy, the dismissal of Special Leave Petition of the State by this Court in that case notwithstanding. Lastly, the principle underlying the decision of Supreme Court in Arun Kumar case, would apply proprio vigore to the case of the respondents. [Para 19][64-D-H; 65-A]
1.3 The respondents are not entitled to the reliefs as claimed, having acted upon the terms and conditions upon which they came to be engaged vide appointment letter dated 16 th March, 2007. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside. [Paras 21, 22][67-A-B]
Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra v. State of Bihar and Ors. decided on 29th August, 2005 in CWJC No.1712/2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna – distinguished.
Ashwani Kumar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Others (1997) 2 SCC 1 : [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 120 ; The Bihar State Adult and Non-Formal Education
Employees Association and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. 1996 SCC Online Pat 235 ; (1996) 2 PLJR
394 ; State of Bihar and Ors. v. Arun Kumar decided on 29th August, 2005 in CWJC No.1712/2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna;
Binod Kumar Verma case, decided on 14th February, 2005 in CWJC No. 15365 of 2001 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna ; Krishnandan Singh case, decided on 23rd May, 2003 in CWJC No.12469 of 2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna ; Amar Nath Prasad Karn case, decided on 10th July, 2017 in CWJC No.18490 of 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna ; Yogi Kamti & Sunil Kumar case, decided on 11th July, 2017 in CWJC No. 18960 of 2008 and 18993 of 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna ; Asgar Ali case, decided on 4th January, 2010 in WPS No.729 of 2004 by the High Court of Jharkhand – 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.