Upekshit Samaj Kalyan Samiti, Ballarpur vs Education Officer (Secondary) & Ors.
- SCC(2009) 15 SCC 194
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an employee is appointed against a permanent vacancy and completes the probation period of two years in that permanent post, the services are deemed to have been confirmed even if formal confirmation was not separately issued. Where an employee has been wrongfully dismissed and is ordered to be reinstated, but the employee did not actually work during the period of wrongful dismissal, the employee is entitled only to 50% of the back wages rather than full back wages for the period of non-employment.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Upekshit Samaj Kalyan Samiti, Ballarpur -Appellant Versus Education Officer (Secondary) & Ors. -Respondents
JUDGMENT
TARUN CHATTERJEE,J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 11th of January, 2008 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in LPA NO.11/2007 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court rejected the LPA filed by the appellant upholding the views taken by the learned Single Judge with the directions made by the School Tribunal to reinstate the respondent No.1 with full back wages in 2 respondent No.4 - School run by the appellant -
Samiti.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we are of the view that in the present case, the question of interference by us under Article 136 of the Constitution is not at all necessary, as in this case we find from the impugned order that the tribunals below concurrently found that the appointment of the respondent No.1 was against a permanent vacancy and on completion of two years probation period in the said permanent post, it must be held that the services are deemed to have been confirmed. Since, we do not find any perversity in the findings of the tribunals below, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. However, on the question of payment of full back wages, we are of the view that since respondent No.1 had not worked he would not be entitled to get full back wages, on the other hand he should be granted 50% of the back wages.
3 4. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of with the above modification that the respondent shall be reinstated if not already done and he would be entitled to 50% of back wages from the appellant.
5. Subject to this modification, the appeal stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
...........................
J.
[Tarun Chatterjee]
New Delhi; .................
........J.
July 07, 2009. [H.L.Dattu]
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