REPORTABL E

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1716  OF 2009   (Arising out of SLP (C) No.5387 of 2007)

Canara Bank by its M.D.                     ….Appellant  

VERSUS

Damodhar Govind Idoorkar & Ors.           ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T  

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.  

1. Leave granted.

2. Respondent  No.1  Damodhar  Govind  Idoorkar  was

an employee of the appellant – Canara Bank. The

services of respondent No.1 was terminated on the

ground  that  he  had  secured  employment  in

reserved  category  by  producing  a  false  caste

certificate. The order of termination was challenged

by way of a writ petition filed by respondent No.1. A

1

learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court

had allowed the said writ petition and quashed the

termination order and directed the reinstatement of

respondent No.1 without any consequential benefits

such as payment of back wages. The learned Single

Judge  also  directed  the  Tehsildar  to  conduct  an

enquiry  to  ascertain  whether  respondent  No.1

belonged to scheduled caste category or not. By a

subsequent  order,  it  was  clarified  that  the  Bank

was free to take whatever action on the basis of the

enquiry  to  be  conducted  by  the  Tehsildar  on the

question of caste certificate of the respondent No.1.

The respondent No.1 had challenged the aforesaid

order by filing an appeal before the Division Bench

of  the  High  Court  in  so  far  as  it  denied  him

consequential  relief of back wages. When the said

appeal was pending before the Division Bench, the

Tehsildar,  in  compliance  with  the  order  of  the

learned Single Judge, after hearing the respondent

No.1, had passed the order holding that respondent

2

No.1  was not  a  scheduled  caste,  but  it  was  held

that  respondent  No.1  belonged  to  Baandhi

community which was a backward class.  

3. The order of the Tehsildar, after remand, was again

challenged  by  respondent  No.1  by  filing  a  writ

application. In this background, the Division Bench

by the impugned order directed the Bank to pay full

back  wages  to  respondent  No.1,  which  had

accumulated  during  the  pendency  of  his

termination.  It  is  this  order,  which  is  under

challenge before us.  

4. From the above,  it  is clear that the only question

which needs to be decided in this appeal is whether

the Division Bench of the High Court was justified

in directing the full  back wages to be paid to the

appellant  in  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the

present case.  

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties

and considered the entire materials on record and

3

after  considering  the  submissions  of  the  learned

counsel  for  the  parties  and  after  giving  serious

consideration to the facts and circumstances of the

case,  we  are  of  the  view  that  the  order  of  the

Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court,  which  is

impugned before us, should be suitably modified by

directing the appellant-Bank to pay 50% of the back

wages to the respondent No.1 instead of full back

wages within two months from the date of supply of

a copy of this order to the Bank Authorities.  

6. Accordingly  this  appeal  is  disposed  of  with  the

above  modification.  There  will  be  no  order  as  to

costs.   

………………………..J [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi;          …………………… …..J.

March 18, 2009.           [H.L.Dattu]

4