http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: CHAIRMAN, GOVERNING COUNCIL ANJUMAN ARTS, COMMERCE & SCIENCE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SAYYED MOHAMMAD SHAFI

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/01/1996

BENCH: SINGH N.P. (J) BENCH: SINGH N.P. (J) AHMADI A.M. (CJ) JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (1) 718        JT 1996 (1)   111  1996 SCALE  (1)142

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      Leave granted.      We have  heard the  counsel for  both the parties. This appeal is  directed against  the order  of the  Civil Judge, Bijapur passed on October 29, 1991 and confirmed by the High Court in  the impugned  order made  on 5.4.1993  in CRP  No. 3565/91. The  facts are  clearly not in dispute. The service of the  respondent was terminated which order was ultimately set aside.  The order  has  merged  with  dismissal  of  the special leave  petition by this Court on July 31, 1989. This Court observed thus:      "The Management  may move the Government      for reimbursement  of the salary paid to      respondent No. 1 and the Government will      decide that  question according  to  law      and in  the light  of the stand taken by      the University.      In the  proceedings for  contempt, it  was held  by the Division Bench that normally the arrears of salary accrue to a person  whose termination  of service  is set  aside,  but payment depends  upon other  factors as well. In the absence of a  clear direction  while issuing  that writ,  it is  not possible to  hold that  the refusal  to pay  the arrears  of salary would  be an  act of contempt. Setting aside an order of dismissal  creates a  cause of action of claim arrears of salary. But  in such  case where  no direction was given for the intervening  period,  payment  of  salary  need  not  be ordered, as  held by  this Court  in Managing Direction U.P. Warehousing Corporation  & Ors.  vs. Vijay  Narayan Vajpayee [AIR 1980 SC 840].      Thereafter, it  would appeal  that the  respondent  had moved an execution application in the District Court to give effect to the order of the Tribunal which is envisaged under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

the Rules. Since the executing Court rejected the claim, the respondent went  in revision  under Section  115 of  Code of Civil Procedure  which was  dismissed in  the impugned order dated April 5, 1993 in CMP No. 3565/91 by the Karnataka High Court.  Pending  the  special  leave  petition,  an  enquiry whether the  respondent was gainfully employed was conducted and it was found that he was gainfully employed.      It is  contended by the counsel for the respondent that this appeal  has become  infructuous. We  cannot conclude on that premise  since the  respondent is  claiming back-wages. There should  be a  finding in  that behalf. Accordingly, we held that  the respondent is not entitled to the back-wages. As  far  as  the  reinstatement  is  concerned,  it  is  not convassed by  the learned  counsel for the appellant that he is not  entitled for  the reinstatement due to the fact that the order of dismissal was set aside and had became final.      The respondent  is entitled  to the payment of admitted salary from  the date of reinstatement. We do not propose to express any  opinion on  other consequential  benefits since the same is to be worked out in the light of the judgment of the Tribunal which was upheld by this Court. If the admitted salary from  the date of reinstatement is not paid, the same is directed  to be  paid within  a period of six months from the date of the receipt of this order.      The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.