Rabindra Kumar Battick And Anr. vs State Of Orissa And Ors.
- SCC(1998) 8 SCC 769
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an employee who has completed required training reports for duty but is not permitted to resume their position due to erroneous action by the employer, and is subsequently restored to service by judicial direction, the employee is entitled to back salary for the period between reporting for duty and actual resumption, notwithstanding that the employee was not at fault for the intervening period of non-service.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
3. We have heard Shri Janaranjan Das, the learned counsel for the appellants.
4. The appellants were untrained teachers employed in Upper Primary School which was initially a private school but was subsequently taken over by the Notified Area Council, CT Rourkela. As the appellants were untrained, they were sent to undergo the CT training course. After completing the training course, they were not allowed to join their respective posts. They filed OAs Nos. 141 and 142 of 1990 before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") which were disposed of by the Tribunal by its judgment dated 4-7-1995. The Tribunal allowed the said applications and directed that the applicants' joining reports be accepted with effect from the date they submitted the same to the Executive Officer of the Notified Area Council, Respondent 4 herein, and they be deemed to be continuing in service for the purpose of seniority, pension, etc., but they would not be entitled to back salary. Feeling aggrieved by directions regarding denial of back salary, the applicants filed review petitions which were dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 6-11-1995. Both these orders have been challenged by the appellants in these appeals.
5. Having regard to the fact that after completing the training the appellants had reported for duty but they were not taken back on duty, it cannot be said that the appellants were at fault. They were not taken back on duty on account of the erroneous action of Respondent 4. The Tribunal was, therefore, not right in denying salary to the appellants for the period from the date when they reported for duty after completing the training till they were taken back on duty in pursuance of the directions contained in the judgment of the Tribunal dated 4-7-1995.
6. The appeals are accordingly allowed, the direction given by the Tribunal that the appellants would not be entitled to back salary is set aside and it is directed that the appellants shall be paid the salary for the period from the date when they reported for duty after completing training till they were taken back on duty. The said payment shall be made within six months. No order as to costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free