Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2816 OF 2007

State of U.P. and Anr. ... Appellants

Versus

Mahindra Nath Tiwari        ...Respondent

J U D G M E N T

J.M. PANCHAL, J.

1. Challenge  in  this  appeal  by  special  leave  is  to  the  

judgment  dated  October  16,  2006  passed  by  a  Division  

Bench  of  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Allahabad  in  

Special  Appeal  No.42  of  2001,  by  which  order  dated  

November 5, 1999 pronounced by the learned Single Judge  

of  the  Allahabad  High  Court  in  Civil  Miscellaneous  Writ  

Petition  No.13710  of  1999  setting  aside  order  dated  

November  20,  1975  terminating  the  services  of  the

respondent  and  allowing  the  petition  filed  by  the  

respondent, is confirmed.

2. The  brief  facts  of  the  case  are  as  under  :  The  

respondent was appointed as a Constable in PAC (Provincial  

Armed  Constabulary),  U.P.  on  June  10,  1970.   He  was  

convicted in a criminal case.  Therefore, his services were  

terminated by the appellant vide order dated November 25,  

1975.   Ultimately,  he  was  acquitted  in  appeal  and  his  

acquittal  was confirmed by this Court.   On acquittal,  the  

appellant should have reinstated the respondent in service  

but no action was taken by the appellant at all.  Therefore,  

the respondent was compelled to file writ petition No.5224  

of 1997 before the High Court for his reinstatement.  The  

said writ  petition was disposed of  on September  5,  1997  

with a direction to the respondent to make representation  

and to the appellants to consider the same.  The respondent  

made representation which was rejected by the appellants  

on February 17, 1998.  Therefore, the respondent filed Writ  

Petition No.13170 of 1999 before the Allahabad High Court.  

The learned Single Judge allowed the same on the basis of  

2

judgment  dated  September  26,  1997  rendered  in  Writ  

Petition  No.46061  of  1998  filed  by  Vijay  Bahadur  Singh  

against State of U.P.  Thereupon, the appellants preferred  

an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.  The  

Division Bench has dismissed the appeal because it found  

that  exhaustive  judgment  was  delivered  by  the  Division  

Bench  of  the  Allahabad  High  Court  taking  into  

consideration all the aspects of the matter and the special  

leave petition filed before this Court was dismissed by order  

dated May 7, 2003.  The judgment delivered by the Division  

Bench  is  the  subject  matter  of  challenge  in  the  instant  

appeal.   

3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for  

the appellant before this Court is that the respondent would  

not be entitled to back wages, more particularly when order  

dated  November  20,  1975  terminating  his  services  was  

challenged  by  him  in  writ  petition  which  was  filed  after  

about  22 years.   The  learned counsel  for  the  respondent  

pleaded that, in fact, the appellants have not been directed  

by the learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench to pay  

3

back wages to the respondent and, therefore, there being no  

substance in the appeal, the same should be dismissed.   

4. This Court has considered the arguments advanced at  

the  Bar  and  the  documents  forming  part  of  the  appeal.  

From the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge, it  

is evident that while allowing the petition of the respondent,  

reliance  was placed on the  decision dated September 26,  

1997 rendered in Writ Petition No.46061 of 1998 filed by  

Vijay  Bahadur  Singh  against  State  of  U.P.   The  said  

judgment is produced before this Court for perusal.  It does  

not  indicate  that  in  the  said  case,  any  back wages  were  

awarded to the petitioner.  Further, the impugned judgment  

also does not direct the appellants to pay back wages to the  

respondent.   The  fact  that  the  respondent  would  not  be  

entitled to back wages is accepted by the learned counsel for  

the respondent.  Therefore, the present appeal deserves to  

be disposed of with clarification that the respondent would  

not be entitled to back wages.   

5. For  the  foregoing  reasons,  it  is  clarified  that  the  

respondents  would  not  be  entitled  to  back  wages  at  all.  

4

Subject to above referred to clarification, the appeal stands  

disposed of.  There shall be no order as to costs.

 …………….……..………J. [J.M. Panchal]

………….……..…………J. [Mukundakam Sharma]

New Delhi; December 17, 2009.

5