NON  REPORTABLE

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

     CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4147  OF 2009      (Arising out of SLP©No.2897 of 2008)

Upekshit Samaj Kalyan Samiti, Ballarpur         -Appellant

Versus

Education Officer (Secondary) & Ors.            –Respondents

J U D G M E N T

TARUN CHATTERJEE,J.

1.     Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and final  

order  dated  11th of  January,  2008  passed  by  a  

Division  Bench of  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  

Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in LPA NO.11/2007  

whereby  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  

rejected the LPA filed by the appellant upholding the  

views  taken  by  the  learned  Single  Judge  with  the  

directions made by the School Tribunal to reinstate  

the  respondent  No.1  with  full  back  wages  in  

1

respondent  No.4  –  School  run  by  the  appellant  –  

Samiti.       

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and  

after going through the materials on record, we are of  

the  view  that  in  the  present  case,  the  question  of  

interference  by  us  under  Article  136  of  the  

Constitution is not at all necessary, as in this case we  

find  from  the  impugned  order  that  the  tribunals  

below concurrently found that the appointment of the  

respondent  No.1  was against  a  permanent  vacancy  

and on completion of two years probation period in  

the  said  permanent  post,  it  must  be  held  that  the  

services are deemed to have been confirmed. Since,  

we do not find any perversity in the findings of the  

tribunals below, we are not inclined to interfere with  

the same. However, on the question of payment of full  

back wages, we are of the view that since respondent  

No.1 had not worked he would not be entitled to get  

full  back  wages,  on  the  other  hand  he  should  be  

granted 50% of the back wages.  

2

4. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of with the above  

modification that the respondent shall be reinstated if  

not already done and he would be entitled to 50% of  

back wages from the appellant.  

5. Subject  to  this  modification,  the  appeal  stands  

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

             ……………………… J.     [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi;                      ..…………… ……..J. July 07, 2009.             [H.L.Dattu]

3