Service Matters

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DIVISION BENCH

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant

Vs.

GHAMMAN SINGH — Respondent

( Before : Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. )

Civil Appeal No.3187 of 2019 with Civil Appeal No.3190 of 2019 Civil Appeal Nos.3191-3193 of 2019

Decided on : 07-06-2023

Service Law – Arrears of salary – Respondents would not be entitled to any arrears they have already been extended benefit of promotion and notional fixation of their salary has also been made.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General (NP), Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. (NP), Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Advocate, Ms. Rekha Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Advocate and Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate and Mr. Anil Kumar Gautam, Advocate, for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. We have heard Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia and Ms. Rekha Pandey, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant(s) and Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent(s).

2. The only issue which requires consideration is as to whether arrears of salary is to be paid to the respondent(s) or not.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant(s) is that in view of the policy laid down vide Circular dated 02.06.2012 and the subsequent corrigendum dated 14.08.2012, the only benefit extended to the respondent(s) was of relaxation and promotion with the specific rider that no back-wages would be paid.

4. It is, however, submitted that the judgment(s) and order(s) of the High Court are subsequent to the aforesaid policy decisions and there was no challenge made to this policy decision by the respondent(s).

5. The submission is that in view of the above, the respondents would not be entitled to any arrears. However, they have already been extended benefit of promotion and notional fixation of their salary has also been made and, in case, there is any lacuna in fixation of their salary, the respondents would be free to point out, which will be duly addressed by the appellant(s) as per law.

6. In view of the above, these appeals succeed to the extent that the back-wages awarded by the High Court under the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) is set aside. Rest of the order is maintained.

7. The appeal(s) are disposed of in the above terms.

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

By sclaw

Leave a Reply

You missed

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.