Madras High Court
P.V.Narayanasamy vs The Joint Registrar Of Coop ... on 21 January, 2021
W.A.No.28 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.01.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.A.No.28 of 2021
P.V.Narayanasamy .. Appellant
Vs
1. The Joint Registrar of Coop Societies
Kancheepuram Region
Combined Coop. Office Complex
Vandavasi Road, Kancheepuram.
2. The Special Officer
G.2212, Puliyur Primary Agricultural
Coop Credit Society
Puliyur Village & Post, Tirukazhukundram Taluk
Kancheepuram District.
3. The President
G.2212, Puliyur Primary Agricultural
Coop Credit Society
Puliyur Village & Post, Tirukazhukundram Taluk
Kancheepuram District. .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 29.7.2020 in W.P.No.20489 of 2013 passed by the learned
Single Judge.
__________
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.28 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.C.Prakasam
For Respondents : Mr.L.P.Shanmughasundaram
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The short question involved in this appeal is whether the writ
petitioner-appellant would be entitled to back wages for the period
that the writ petitioner's services remained terminated before the
writ petitioner was reinstated pursuant to an order of this Court.
2. Ordinarily, the principle is that when an order of
reinstatement is made, the issue as to back wages is incidental to
the principal question. If no specific order is made for back wages
or wages of any kind despite an order of reinstatement being made,
the prayer for back wages is deemed to have been specifically
declined by the Court. The situation is akin to a decree being
passed in a money suit without making any provision for interest.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.28 of 2021
In such a scenario, the civil Court is deemed to have declined the
prayer for interest.
3. In the present case, however, the order dated December
20, 2006 passed on W.P.No.26123 of 2004, by which the writ
petitioner was reinstated, expressly provided that the writ petitioner
would not be automatically entitled to back wages, but such aspect
ought to be considered by the employer. Thus, the order
reinstating the writ petitioner did not grant any relief on account of
back wages to the writ petitioner and left it to the discretion of the
employer. The employer has subsequently considered it
appropriate not to grant any wages to the writ petitioner for the
period that the writ petitioner's services were not utilised. There
does not appear to be any anomaly or arbitrariness in the decision.
4. As a consequence, there is no merit in the cause sought to
be espoused by the writ petitioner. The judgment and order
impugned dated July 29, 2020 take relevant considerations into
account and there does not appear to be any infirmity therein.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.28 of 2021
Such order does not call for any interference.
W.A.No.28 of 2021 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
(S.B., CJ.) (S.K.R., J.)
21.01.2021
Index : No
sasi
To:
The Joint Registrar of Coop Societies
Kancheepuram Region
Combined Coop. Office Complex
Vandavasi Road, Kancheepuram.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.28 of 2021
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
(sasi)
W.A.No.28 of 2021
21.01.2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
