http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SARITA THAKUR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/09/1993

BENCH:

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.   Special leave granted. 2.   Heard.  These two appeals are filed by the  appellants, namely,  the  Committee of Management, Jai  Sita  Ram  Kisan Intermediate College, Jhinjhana, District Muzaffarnagar  and the  Manager,  Jai  Sita  Ram  Kisan  Intermediate  College, against  the  judgment  and  order  of  the  High  Court  of Allahabad  in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition  No.  10946, which was partly allowed, and Writ Petition No. 8929 of  198 1, which was dismissed. 3.The  High  Court  arrived  at  its  conclusion  on   an interpretation  of  Regulation  26 of  Chapter  III  of  the Regulations  framed  under the U.P.  Intermediate  Education Act.  The said regulation reads thus:               "26. (1) The services of a permanent  employee               may be terminated by giving him three  months’               notice or three months’ pay in lieu thereof on               the ground of the abolition of the post  which               the employee is holding.  The abolition may be               due to one of the following reasons:               (a)   Retrenchment decided upon for reasons of               financial stringency.               (b)   Abolition of subject.               (c)   Abolition of section or class. (2)For  the  purpose  of computing the  period  of  notice mentioned in clause (1) or for determining the amount to  be paid in lieu thereof the period of summer vacation shall  be excluded." 4.  The  High  Court held that  the  order  terminating  the services of the first respondent (before us), passed by  the appellants,  was  invalid because it was not  in  accordance with the said regulation.  The High Court ordered:               "As held by the Deputy Director of  Education,               Meerut,  it will be open to the Management  of               the  College to terminate the services of  the               petitioner afresh by giving him three  months’               notice  or three months’ pay in lieu  thereof.               Till  such a notice or pay in lieu thereof  is               given, the petitioner is               +    Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.  16836-37               of 1991               395               entitled to continue in service and he is also

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

             entitled  for payment of salary.  The  payment               of  arrears  of salary shall  be  made  within               three months from the date of presentation  of               a  certified  copy of this  order  before  the               Committee of Management of the College and the               District Inspector of Schools,  Muzaffarnagar.               In  case the notice of three months or pay  of               three months in lieu thereof has not yet  been               given,  petitioner will be paid the salary  as               and  when  it falls due  regularly  till  such               notice or pay is given to him." 5.We  have heard learned counsel for all the  parties  at length.  We are unableto   agree  with  the   contentions raised on behalf of the appellants.  We are of theview that the impugned judgment of the High Court is correct  and does not warrant any interference. 6.As set out by the High Court, we direct the  appellants to  give  to  the first respondent  forthwith  a  notice  of termination  of  his services in accordance  with  the  said regulation.   Regarding  payment of arrears  of  salary,  we direct  the  appellants  to pay to the  first  respondent  a consolidated sum of Rs 2,00,000 (Rupees Two lakhs) within  a period of six months from today.  Mr Satish Chandra, learned counsel for the first respondent, fairly agrees and  accepts the said sum in full and final satisfaction of past  arrears of salary till the date of payment.  The said payment of  Rs 2,00,000  shall  be staggered between the period  July  1972 till  the date of payment for the purpose of income tax  and the  first respondent shall be entitled to  the  appropriate relief. 7.The  order of the High Court is modified to  the  above extent  and  the appeals are disposed  of  accordingly.   No costs. SARITA THAKUR V. UNION OF INDIA ORDER 1.   Delay condoned. 2.   Special leave granted. 3.   Heard  counsel on both sides.  While the  tribunal  has not  allowed  back wages by its order  dated  24-7-1991  but directed  reinstatement  of  the appellant  in  service,  it appears  that  the  Union  of India took  its  own  time  to reinstate her +  Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10473 of 1993 396 even  though  the  Union’s petition for  special  leave  was dismissed.   The learned counsel for the appellant  contends that the tribunal ought to have awarded back wages but we do not  propose  to entertain that  contention.   However,  his contention that it was obligatory on the Union to  reinstate the appellant within a reasonable time after the  tribunal’s order  of 24-7-1991 is well-founded.  We see no  reason  why the  Union  of India failed to carry out the  terms  of  the tribunal’s  order even after the special leave petition  was rejected.   We can understand that the Union of India  would take some reasonable time for reinstating the petitioner  in pursuance  of  the tribunal’s order but we are not  able  to understand  why  it failed to do so till almost the  end  of 1992.  We are, therefore, of the opinion that the  appellant is  entitled  to back wages from August,  1991  till  actual reinstatement.  4.  In  the result we allow this appeal  to  the  aforesaid limited  extent and direct that the appellant will  be  paid back  wages from 1-8-1991 till actual  reinstatement  within three months from today.  The appeal will stand disposed  of accordingly with no order as to costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

396