19 July 2010
Supreme Court
Download

SUSHIL KUMAR Vs UNIV.OF DELHI

Bench: HARJIT SINGH BEDI,CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, , ,
Case number: C.A. No.-005974-005974 / 2010
Diary number: 21811 / 2009
Advocates: AMIT PAWAN Vs MOHINDER JIT SINGH


1

                                                                                                                         1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5974 OF 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.21877 of 2009 ]

 

SUSHIL KUMAR     ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

UNIV. OF DELHI    ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

Leave granted.

We  had  issued  notice  on  the  question  of  

back wages only in this appeal by the workman.  We  

see from the order of the High Court dated 9th  

September, 2008 that the total claim towards back  

wages was Rs. 3.5 lakhs but the High Court while  

declining reinstatement and other claims made by  

the appellant  herein against the University, had  

ordered the payment of Rs. 1.5 lakhs as a lump sum  

payment.   

Today, the learned counsel for the University  

submits that he would leave it to the Court to fix  

such amount as  compensation as the Court thought  

proper.  We put it to the learned counsel for the

2

                                                                                                                         2

appellant as to whether he too would make a similar  

submission.  He very kindly agreed to do so.  We,  

accordingly,  increase the compensation from Rs.  

1.5 lakhs to Rs 2 lakhs in all.

We are told by the learned counsel for the  

University  that  the  sum  of  Rs.  1.5  lakhs  has  

already  been  paid  to  the  appellant.   We,  

accordingly, direct that the balance amount of Rs.  

50,000/-  shall  be  paid  within  a  period  of  one  

month.

We,  further,  leave  it  open  to  the  

University to consider the possibility of giving  

a fresh appointment to the appellant in case some  

post is available although we hasten to clarify  

that  the  appellant  would  not  claim  the  re-

appointment as a matter of right.        

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

    ..................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ..................J      [C.K.PRASAD]

   NEW DELHI     JULY 19, 2010.

3

                                                                                                                         3

4

                                                                                                                         4