NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10574 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 19953 of 2015)

The Life Insurance Corporation of India             ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Sri Kalappa M. Sankad (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors.    ….Respondent(s)

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

1

2. This appeal is filed against the impugned final

judgment and  order  dated  13.02.2015  passed  by

the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ

Appeal No. 3120 of 2014(S­RES) whereby the High

Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.

3. The  issue  involved  in  the  appeal is  short. It

would be clear from the facts  mentioned herein

below.

4. Mr. Kalappa M. Sankad was the original

respondent  herein.  He died  pending appeal  and,

therefore, represented  by  his legal representatives

as respondents to continue the lis.

5. Mr. Kalappa was working with the appellant ­

Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) since 1988. He

joined as an Apprentice Development Officer at

Gulbarga office and then at Bijapur office.  

6. The appellant (LIC) terminated the services of

Mr. Kalappa by order dated 10.4.2013.  Mr. Kalappa

2

felt aggrieved and filed departmental appeal against

his termination.  It  was dismissed.   He then filed

writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka

challenging his termination order on several

grounds.

7. By order dated 21.11.2014, the learned Single

Judge allowed  the writ  petition and set  aside  the

termination order. The LIC (appellant  herein) felt

aggrieved and filed intra court appeal before the

Division Bench.  

8. By impugned order, the Division Bench

dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of

learned Single Judge, which gives rise to filing of the

present appeal by way of special leave to appeal in

this Court.

9. Heard Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, learned

senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Basant,

learned senior counsel for the respondent(s).

3

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order

and  dispose  of the  appeal  as indicated  below  for

ensuring its compliance by the appellant.

11.  We have  perused  the  order  of the learned

Single Judge and the impugned order, which

resulted in quashing Mr. Kalappa's termination

order resulting in directing his reinstatement in

service.  

12. Having gone through the orders, in the facts of

this case, we do not find any good ground to uphold

the termination order and set aside the impugned

order.  

13. In our view, the two courts below rightly set

aside the termination order, which does not call for

any interference in this appeal.

4

14. Since Mr. Kalappa expired during pendency of

this litigation, the question of his reinstatement in

the services of  LIC does not arise.   It is  not  now

possible.  

15. The only question, which now survives for

consideration, is in relation to payment of back

wages payable to the present respondents (legal

representatives of Mr. Kalappa) as a result of setting

aside of the termination order of Mr. Kalappa.

16.  On this issue, we have heard both the learned

counsels who gave their respective calculations. We

have perused their statements. We may consider it

apposite to mention that this matter did not arise

from Labour Tribunal but arose from the writ

petition filed in the High Court.  

17. It is for this reason, the parties did not adduce

any evidence on the  question as to  whether  Mr.

Kalappa, after termination of his services from LIC,

5

was gainfully employed anywhere or not.  There was

neither any pleading, nor evidence much less

finding either way on this issue in these

proceedings.  

18. It is for this reason and keeping in  view all

facts and circumstances of the case, we have

examined the question of total payment of back

wages payable to the respondents.

19. Mr. Kalappa was entitled for gross arrears of

salary  and CMD/TR GR/PLE DIFF  for the  period

from ­ April 2013 to August 2016.  Keeping in view

his last drawn salary which was calculated by the

appellant in their statement on the basis of his

revised basic  pay  scale, the total  arrears towards

salary is  worked out to  Rs.20,21,250.18 plus  Rs.

35,857 i.e. Rs. 20,57,107. 18.  

6

20. It is not in dispute that there  were certain

recoveries also  which  were to  be  made from  Mr.

Kalappa under specific heads by the appellant such

as  (1)  Provident Fund contribution­Rs.1,69,771.00

(2) Income Tax­Rs.4,00,000.00 and (3) recovery

against loans & advances availed of by Mr. Kalappa

while he was in service­Rs. 2,28,023.00 totalling to

Rs.12,59,313.18.  

21. In our view, taking into account the overall

factual  scenario brought  on record by  the  parties

arising in the case coupled with what we have

observed supra, the respondents are held entitled to

claim back wages amounting to Rs. 20,57,107.18

minus Rs.12,59,313.18.  

22. In other words, after deducting Rs.

12,59,313.18 from Rs.20,57,107.18, the balance

7

amount  be  paid to the respondents  after  making

proper verification and calculation, if need be.  

23. We make it clear that we have not accepted the

claim made by the respondents for arrears of salary,

which we find was essentially based on several pay

rise and notional promotion etc.    In our view, it is

not legally sustainable in the facts of this case.  

24.  Let the aforementioned amount be paid to the

respondents by the appellant (LIC) within 3 months

as an outer limit after again making proper

calculation under all the heads mentioned in their

statement.

25. In view of the forgoing discussion, the appeal

stands accordingly disposed of finally.   

………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

8

         .... ……..................................J.

       [INDU MALHOTRA] New Delhi; October 12, 2018.

9