The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Ali Hussain Ansari on 15 January, 2020


Supreme Court of India

The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Ali Hussain Ansari on 15 January, 2020

Author: Sanjiv Khanna

Bench: N.V. Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna, Krishna Murari

                                                                                    NON-REPORTABLE

                                               IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 314 OF 2020
                              (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 18627 OF 2019)

                         THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND
                         OTHERS                                                  .....    APPELLANTS

                                                       VERSUS

                         ALI HUSSAIN ANSARI AND ANOTHER                          .....   RESPONDENTS




                                                         JUDGMENT

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

Leave granted.

2. State of Uttar Pradesh and its functionaries have filed the present

appeal challenging the judgment dated 19.07.2018 passed by the

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, whereby the Division

Bench has dismissed their appeal and affirmed the order dated

04.01.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge directing grant of

consequential benefits in the form of post-retirement benefits with

seniority in service and promotion(s), if any, but not actual
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
Date: 2020.01.15
payment of salary for the period between 08.06.1987 to
15:46:49 IST
Reason:

30.06.2006. The Division Bench by the impugned judgment has

thereby affirmed the finding regarding continuation of service
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 18627 of 2019 Page 1 of 6
treating the first respondent’s initial date of appointment as

08.06.1987 and directed that the period between 8.6.1987 till the

date of actual joining on 30.06.2006 shall be counted for the

purpose of consequential benefits, including pensionary benefits,

albeit would be excluded for payment of back wages.

3. Having heard counsel for the parties, we feel, in view of peculiar

facts and on balance of equities, the directions regarding the post-

retirement benefit etc. as granted requires a modification.

4. Ali Hussain Ansari, the first respondent before us, was

recommended for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Satya

Prakash Vivekanand Inter College, Musahari, Deoria, Uttar

Pradesh on ad hoc basis. However, the Committee of

Management in the said college, the second respondent before

us, did not agree and consequently did not issue an appointment

letter. They issued an advertisement dated 08.07.1987 for direct

recruitment to the post. The names registered with the

Employment Exchange were to be included. One Shesh Mani

Shukla, upon selection, was appointed and a letter dated

11.09.1987 was written to the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria

for approval. However, the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria

declined and did not grant approval vide his letter dated

10.12.1987 stating inter alia that the selection of Shesh Mani
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 18627 of 2019 Page 2 of 6
Shukla was contrary to the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Secondary

Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981. By

order dated 20.04.1988, the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria

refused to grant financial approval for appointment of Shesh Mani

Shukla. Aggrieved with the stand taken by the District Inspector of

Schools, Deoria, Shesh Mani Shukla assailed these orders in Writ

Petition No. 14530/1988 before the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad. By the interim order dated 27.01.1992, the appellants

before us, including District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and the

second respondent were directed to pay salary to Shesh Mani

Shukla. Therefore, and in terms of the interim directions, Shesh

Mani Shukla had worked and was paid salary till 23.04.2004,

when the High Court was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition filed

by him. Aggrieved, Shesh Mani Shukla had preferred Special

Appeal No. 590 of 2004 which was dismissed by the Division

Bench of the High Court on 22.02.2006. The appeal against this

judgment was also dismissed by this Court in C.A. No. 4966 of

2009 vide judgement dated 31.07.2009.

5. Thereupon, the first respondent was issued appointment letter and

was appointed as Assistant Professor on 30.06.2006 after the

competent authority, that is, the District Inspector of Schools,

Deoria had issued order dated 31.07.2006. The first respondent

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 18627 of 2019 Page 3 of 6
retired from service on 30.06.2009 on attaining the age of

superannuation.

6. On or about 01.05.2008, the first respondent had filed Writ Petition

No. 221012 of 2008 before the High Court seeking payment of

arrears of salary from 08.06.1987 till 30.06.2006. This Writ Petition

was disposed of by order dated 01.05.2008 of the learned Single

Judge with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria

to consider and decide the representation made by the first

respondent. The District Inspector of Schools, Deoria vide order

dated 20.05.2009 rejected the representation for payment of

arrears of salary on the principle of “no work no pay”. Aggrieved,

the first respondent had preferred Writ Petition No. 11131 of 2010

which was disposed of vide judgment dated 04.01.2018 directing

that the first respondent would be entitled to consequential

benefits including pension benefits with effect from 08.06.1987.

We have already referred to the order in Special Appeal Defective

No. 416 of 2018 passed by the Division Bench which has

dismissed the appeal holding inter alia that the respondent would

be entitled to retirement benefits treating him to be in service with

effect from 08.06.1987 with seniority and benefit of promotion(s), if

any, for the purpose of payment of retirement benefits. However,

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 18627 of 2019 Page 4 of 6
actual salary was not to be paid on the principle of “no work no

pay”.

7. From the fact recorded above, it is apparent that Shesh Mani

Shukla upon selection and appointment had filed a Writ Petition in

1988 and worked as an Assistant Professor till 2004. This was in

view of the interim directions issued by the High Court. The salary

was also paid to Shesh Mani Shukla as the Assistant Professor.

The first respondent though recommended for the vacant post of

Assistant Teacher was never issued an appointment letter and

was not appointed and had not worked till he joined the post on

30.06.2006. After working for three years, he retired on

30.06.2009. Keeping in view the aforesaid peculiar factual

position, we would modify the directions given by the Court on the

payment of retirement benefits with a direction that the first

respondent would be paid an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (rupees

four lakhs only) as compensation. This compensation would be in

addition to any other benefits which would be payable to the first

respondent in accordance with law treating his date of

appointment as 30.06.2006. The aforesaid sum of Rs.4,00,000/-

(rupees four lakhs only) would be paid by the appellant within a

period of six weeks from the date of this order and in case of delay

of payment, the appellant would be liable to pay interest @ 10%

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 18627 of 2019 Page 5 of 6
per annum from the date of this order. The appeal is accordingly

disposed of.

………………………………..J.

(S. ABDUL NAZEER)

………………………………..J.

(SANJIV KHANNA)
NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 15, 2020

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 18627 of 2019 Page 6 of 6



Source link