Chattisgarh High Court
Vinod Pandey vs Laxmi Mahila Sahkari Bank ... on 30 January, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 388 of 2020
Vinod Pandey S/o Shri Chandrama Prasad Pandey Aged About 41
Years R/o Mahamai Para, Purani Basti, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Laxmi Mahila Sahkari Bank Maryadit A Society Registered Under
The Chhattisgarh Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 (Registered No.
JRR/Registration/94/11 Dated 04-04-1994) Raipur, Through
Manager, Manjeet Singh Hura, Aged About 48 Years, S/o Shri Buta
Singh Hura, Millennium Plaza Complex, GE Road, Raipur, C.G.-
492001
2. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Co-
Operative, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Registrar Co-Operative Societies, State of Chhattisgarh, Vivekanand
Complex, Vivekanand Nagar, Pension Bada Chowk, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
4. Joint Registrar Co-Operative Societies, State of Chhattisgarh,
Vivekanand Complex, Vivekanand Nagar, Pension Bada Chowk,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5. Additional Registrar, State of Chhattisgarh, Vivekanand Complex,
Vivekanand Nagar, Pension Bada Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. C.J.K.Rao, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1 : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2 to 5 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government
Advocate.
AND
WA No. 391 of 2020
Laxmi Mahila Sahkari Bank Maryadit A Society Registered Under The
Chhattisgarh Co-Opeartive Societies Act, 1960 (Registration No.
JRR/Registration/94/11 Dated 04-04-1994), Raipur (Through Manager
Manjeet Singh Hura, Aged About 57 Years, S/o Shri Buta Singh Hura)
Millennium Plaza Complex, GE Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh (Through Secretary, Department of Co
Operatives) Mantralaya Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. Vinod Pandey S/o Shri Chandrama Prasad Pandey R/o Mahamai
Para, Purani Basti, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Registrar Co-Operative Societies, State of Chhattisgarh, Block 3, 2nd
And 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
4. Joint Registrar Co Operative Societies, State of Chhattisgarh, Block
3, 2nd And 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5. Additional Registrar, State of Chhattisgarh, Block 3, 2nd and 3rd
Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate
For Respondents No. : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government
1, 3 to 5 Advocate
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. C.J.K.Rao, Advocate.
Hon'ble Mr. Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mrs. Rajani Dubey, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
30/01/2023
Heard Mr. C.J.K.Rao, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant in
WA No. 388/2020 and respondent No. 2 in WA No. 391/2020. Also heard
Ms. Diksha Gouraha, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant in WA
No. 391/2020 and respondent No. 1 in WA No. 388/2020 as well as Mr.
Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the
respondents No. 2 to 5 in WA No. 388/2020 and respondents No. 1, 3 to 5
in WA No. 391/2020.
2. WA No. 388/2020 is presented against an order dated 16.07.2020
passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 955/2011, filed by the
respondent No. 1-Laxmi Mahila Sahkari Bank Maryadit (for short, the
Bank).
3. At this juncture, it is also to be noticed that against the very same
judgment, the respondent No. 1-Bank has filed an appeal, registered as
WA No. 391/2020, which is listed today alongwith WA No. 388/2020.
4. At the very outset, Ms. Gouraha, learned counsel, appearing for the
appellant-Bank (in WA No. 391/2020) submits that in view of the
opportunity granted by the learned Single Judge to initiate a fresh
departmental proceeding, such proceeding had been initiated and
therefore, she has been instructed to submit that this appeal has been
rendered infructuous.
5. In view of the above submission, WA No. 391/2020 is dismissed as
infructuous.
6. Mr. C.J.K.Rao, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant-
employee (in WA No. 388/2020) submits that the learned Single Judge has
upheld the order of reinstatement granted by the State Government.
However, the appellant is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single
Judge to the extent that the learned Single Judge has granted back-wages
only from the date of filing of the writ petition and not from the date of
termination of the service, which was on 11.12.2004. It is submitted by Mr.
Rao that when the termination order has been set aside and the
reinstatement has been allowed, as a logical corollary, back-wages from
the date of termination ought to have followed. He further submits that
although the employee was reinstated, the appellant has not been paid his
back-wages as ordered by the learned Single Judge, though there is no
stay of payment of back-wages.
7. With regard to grant of back-wages, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
Novartis India Limited v. State of West Bengal & Others, reported in
(2009) 3 SCC 124, observed as follows:
"22. It is trite that for the purpose of grant of back wages,
conduct of the workman concerned also plays a vital role.
Each decision, as regards grant of back wages or the
quantum thereof, would, therefore, depend on the fact of
each case. Back wages are ordinarily to be granted,
keeping in view the principles of grant of damages in mind.
It cannot be claimed as a matter of right."
8. In C.N.Malla v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others, reported in
(2009) 9 SCC 597, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"11. The legal position is fairly settled by a catena of
decisions that direction to pay back wages in its entirety is
not automatic consequent upon declaration of dismissal
order bad in law. The concept of discretion is inbuilt in
such exercise. The court is required to exercise discretion
reasonably and judiciously keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case. Each case, of course, would
depend on its own facts."
9. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge goes to show that
the learned Single Judge has recorded a categorical finding that during the
interregnum period, the appellant had started his own business of sale and
purchase of second hand vehicles.
10. Having regard to the above, we find that the learned Single Judge
was justified in not granting back-wages from the date of termination.
Taking that view, we find no merit in this appeal.
11. However, the respondent-Bank is directed to pay the back-wages in
terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge within a period of 60
days from the receipt of a copy of this order failing which the appellant-
employee shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of filing of the writ petition i.e. 11.02.2011, till the payment is made.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Rajani Dubey)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Amit
