caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Ali Hussain Ansari on 15 January, 2020Author: Sanjiv Khanna
Bench: N.V. Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna, Krishna Murari
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 314 OF 2020
(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 18627 OF 2019)
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND
OTHERS ….. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
ALI HUSSAIN ANSARI AND ANOTHER ….. RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
Leave granted.
2. State of Uttar Pradesh and its functionaries have filed the present
appeal challenging the judgment dated 19.07.2018 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, whereby the Division
Bench has dismissed their appeal and affirmed the order dated
04.01.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge directing grant of
consequential benefits in the form of post-retirement benefits with
seniority in service and promotion(s), if any, but not actual
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
Date: 2020.01.15
payment of salary for the period between 08.06.1987 to
15:46:49 IST
Reason:
30.06.2006. The Division Bench by the impugned judgment has
thereby affirmed the finding regarding continuation of service
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 18627 of 2019 Page 1 of 6
treating the first respondent’s initial date of appointment as
08.06.1987 and directed that the period between 8.6.1987 till the
date of actual joining on 30.06.2006 shall be counted for the
purpose of consequential benefits, including pensionary benefits,
albeit would be excluded for payment of back wages.
3. Having heard counsel for the parties, we feel, in view of peculiar
facts and on balance of equities, the directions regarding the post-
retirement benefit etc. as granted requires a modification.
4. Ali Hussain Ansari, the first respondent before us, was
recommended for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Satya
Prakash Vivekanand Inter College, Musahari, Deoria, Uttar
Pradesh on ad hoc basis. However, the Committee of
Management in the said college, the second respondent before
us, did not agree and consequently did not issue an appointment
letter. They issued an advertisement dated 08.07.1987 for direct
recruitment to the post. The names registered with the
Employment Exchange were to be included. One Shesh Mani
Shukla, upon selection, was appointed and a letter dated
11.09.1987 was written to the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria
for approval. However, the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria
declined and did not grant approval vide his letter dated
10.12.1987 stating inter alia that the selection of Shesh Mani
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 18627 of 2019 Page 2 of 6
Shukla was contrary to the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Secondary
Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981. By
order dated 20.04.1988, the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria
refused to grant financial approval for appointment of Shesh Mani
Shukla. Aggrieved with the stand taken by the District Inspector of
Schools, Deoria, Shesh Mani Shukla assailed these orders in Writ
Petition No. 14530/1988 before the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad. By the interim order dated 27.01.1992, the appellants
before us, including District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and the
second respondent were directed to pay salary to Shesh Mani
Shukla. Therefore, and in terms of the interim directions, Shesh
Mani Shukla had worked and was paid salary till 23.04.2004,
when the High Court was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition filed
by him. Aggrieved, Shesh Mani Shukla had preferred Special
Appeal No. 590 of 2004 which was dismissed by the Division
Bench of the High Court on 22.02.2006. The appeal against this
judgment was also dismissed by this Court in C.A. No. 4966 of
2009 vide judgement dated 31.07.2009.
5. Thereupon, the first respondent was issued appointment letter and
was appointed as Assistant Professor on 30.06.2006 after the
competent authority, that is, the District Inspector of Schools,
Deoria had issued order dated 31.07.2006. The first respondent
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 18627 of 2019 Page 3 of 6
retired from service on 30.06.2009 on attaining the age of
superannuation.
6. On or about 01.05.2008, the first respondent had filed Writ Petition
No. 221012 of 2008 before the High Court seeking payment of
arrears of salary from 08.06.1987 till 30.06.2006. This Writ Petition
was disposed of by order dated 01.05.2008 of the learned Single
Judge with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria
to consider and decide the representation made by the first
respondent. The District Inspector of Schools, Deoria vide order
dated 20.05.2009 rejected the representation for payment of
arrears of salary on the principle of “no work no pay”. Aggrieved,
the first respondent had preferred Writ Petition No. 11131 of 2010
which was disposed of vide judgment dated 04.01.2018 directing
that the first respondent would be entitled to consequential
benefits including pension benefits with effect from 08.06.1987.
We have already referred to the order in Special Appeal Defective
No. 416 of 2018 passed by the Division Bench which has
dismissed the appeal holding inter alia that the respondent would
be entitled to retirement benefits treating him to be in service with
effect from 08.06.1987 with seniority and benefit of promotion(s), if
any, for the purpose of payment of retirement benefits. However,
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 18627 of 2019 Page 4 of 6
actual salary was not to be paid on the principle of “no work no
pay”.
7. From the fact recorded above, it is apparent that Shesh Mani
Shukla upon selection and appointment had filed a Writ Petition in
1988 and worked as an Assistant Professor till 2004. This was in
view of the interim directions issued by the High Court. The salary
was also paid to Shesh Mani Shukla as the Assistant Professor.
The first respondent though recommended for the vacant post of
Assistant Teacher was never issued an appointment letter and
was not appointed and had not worked till he joined the post on
30.06.2006. After working for three years, he retired on
30.06.2009. Keeping in view the aforesaid peculiar factual
position, we would modify the directions given by the Court on the
payment of retirement benefits with a direction that the first
respondent would be paid an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (rupees
four lakhs only) as compensation. This compensation would be in
addition to any other benefits which would be payable to the first
respondent in accordance with law treating his date of
appointment as 30.06.2006. The aforesaid sum of Rs.4,00,000/-
(rupees four lakhs only) would be paid by the appellant within a
period of six weeks from the date of this order and in case of delay
of payment, the appellant would be liable to pay interest @ 10%
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 18627 of 2019 Page 5 of 6
per annum from the date of this order. The appeal is accordingly
disposed of.
………………………………..J.
(S. ABDUL NAZEER)
………………………………..J.
(SANJIV KHANNA)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 15, 2020
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 18627 of 2019 Page 6 of 6
Comments