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

J U D G M E N T

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

payment  of  salary  for  the  period  between  08.06.1987  to

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