Madras High Court
Salim Ali Centre For Ornithology vs Dr.Mathew K.Sebastian on 27 July, 2021
W.A.No.35/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.No.35 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.448 of 2021
1. Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology
& Natural History
rep. by its Member Secretary,
Anaikatty P.O., Coimbatore-641 108.
2. The Director,
Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology
& Natural History,
Anaikatty P.O., Coimbatore-641 108. .. Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
Dr.Mathew K.Sebastian .. Respondent/Petitioner
***
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 25.02.2020 in W.P.No.29201 of 2011.
***
For Appellants : Mr.J.Abishek
For Respondent : Mr.Sundar Narayan
JUDGEMENT
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
Questioning the correctness of the order of the writ Court dated
25.02.2020 made in W.P.No.29201 of 2020, the instant appeal is
instituted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1/8
W.A.No.35/2021
2. By virtue of the order impugned, the writ petition filed by the
respondent herein was allowed by this Court, thereby, directing the
appellants to pay the backwages along with interest of 9% p.a., to the
writ petitioner for the period from 23.08.2002 to 30.04.2007 within six
weeks of the date of receipt of the said order.
3. Though there is no dispute qua the facts, for better
appreciation of the appeal, the short facts germane for filing this appeal
are that : the writ petitioner joined the appellants institution as Extension
Officer on 17.11.1993, but he was terminated from service on
30.01.1996 ; he, along with other similarly placed colleagues,
successfully challenged the said termination order in W.P.No.1784 of
1996 and this Court in the common order dated 23.08.2002
(Dr.E.Johnson and others V. Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and
Natural History, 2002 (4) CTC 65) directed his restatement with
service benefits, but without backwages ; the appeals filed against the
said order were dismissed in Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and
Natural History V. Dr.C.P.Geevan, (2010) 4 MLJ 1180 consequent to
which, the writ petitioner was reinstated in his original post on
16.12.2010 ; since there was a stay in the said appeal, the writ petitioner
could not join the services and he was out of employment from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 2/8
W.A.No.35/2021
23.08.2002 to 30.04.2007 and he was in some other employment only
from 01.05.2007 to 20.01.2011 ; he was entitled for service benefits in
terms of the order dated 23.08.2002, which was stayed only at the
instance of the appellants ; he submitted representations on 21.02.2011,
01.04.2011, 27.04.2011, 12.08.2011 and 21.11.2011 seeking service
and permissible and lawful monetary benefits ; since no fruitful orders
were forthcoming, he filed W.P.No.29201 of 2011 which culminated in
the order impugned in this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since
there was an order of stay of the order dated 23.08.2002 granted by the
Division Bench of this Court, the writ petitioner was not reinstated in
service and after the dismissal of their appeal, the orders of this Court
have been complied with by the appellants and the eligible benefits have
been extended to him, and thus, the writ petitioner is not entitled for the
benefits sought for in the instant proceedings.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the
writ petitioner was a Senior Research Assistant in Central Silk Board,
Government of India, from December 1987 till 16.11.1993 in a
permanent post and he joined the appellant institution with great
ambition, which was shattered by the person, who manned the society. It
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 3/8
W.A.No.35/2021
is contended that what has been sought for by the writ petitioner is his
assets, which he would have earned in the normal course of
employment, and but for the acts and deeds of the appellants, he could
not earn them in the right time and suffered monetarily and emotionally
and the same has been compensated by this Court vide order dated
23.08.2002 and the appellants should not be allowed to deny the lawful
benefits to him. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
6. We have heard the submissions of either side and perused
the materials before us.
7. Facts are not in dispute. Admittedly, the writ petitioner
himself stated that he was out of employment from 23.08.2002 to
30.04.2007 and also fairly submitted that he was in employment from
01.05.2007 to 20.01.2011. This Court, in the order dated 23.08.2002
made W.P.No.1784 of 1996, while ordering his restatement with service
benefits, denied him the benefit of backwages for the earlier period.
However, the said order was stayed by the Division Bench of this Court
on 30.10.2003, which was in force till the disposal of the writ appeal on
25.02.2010, after which he was reinstated on 16.12.2010. Had the order
of the learned Single Judge been implemented, the writ petitioner ought
to have been given all service and monetary benefits from 23.08.2002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 4/8
W.A.No.35/2021
Since the appellants failed to succeed in the writ appeal, they cannot
take advantage over the interim order granted during the pendency of
the appeal.
8. A Division Bench of this Court in S.Sivaraj V. The Managing
Director, Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation Corporation Limited, 2007
(5) CTC 579, held as follows :
"9. In fact the Supreme Court has considered the
entitlement of an employee for backwages when the order of
dismissal is set aside in the decision in Banshi Dhar V. State
of Rajasthan and another, 2007 (1) SCC 324, wherein the
Supreme Court observed that no hard and fast rule can be laid
down in regard to the grant of backwages and each case has to
be determined on its own facts. In the decision in Muir Mills
Unit of NTC (U.P.) Ltd. v. Swayam Prakash Srivastava and
another, 2007 (1) SCC 491, the Supreme Court has
reiterated the same law by holding that the payment of full
backwages is not a natural consequence of setting aside an
order of termination of services.
10. It is not a rule of thumb that in every case where
reinstatement is ordered, the payment of backwages is a
natural consequence. It depends on the facts of each case. On
the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the
considered view that the termination which was set aside by
this Court is purely on the ground of procedural irregularity and
such order will not confer an automatic right for the appellant to
draw backwages."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 5/8
W.A.No.35/2021
9. While there is no quarrel qua the above said preposition, it is
apt to refer to the judgment in P.Soundararajan V. The Managing
Director, SIPCOT Limited, Chennai, 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 15449,
wherein, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court dealt with the issue of not
granting backwages to the employee, who was punished departmentally
for the conviction suffered before the trial Court, but acquitted by this
Court in a revision petition. Applying the ration laid down by the Supreme
Court in O.P.Gupta V. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 328, that while
ordering reinstatement, it is necessary to make a specific order regarding
the pay and allowances to be paid to the individual for the period of
absence from duty, the Division Bench ordered 25% backwages to the
employee therein for the period of his non-employment.
10. Following the P.Soundararajan's case, we are of the view
that there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in
ordering backwages along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum to
the writ petitioner for the period from 23.08.2002 to 30.04.2007, during
which time, he was out of employment.
11. The above view is taken for the simple reason that the writ
petitioner, who is a Doctorate cannot be mulcted with the liability of his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 6/8
W.A.No.35/2021
non-employment with the appellants during the relevant period, for
which, the relief is sought for.
12. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge is
confirmed and the writ Appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
(P.S.N., J.) (K.R., J.)
27.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes
gg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 7/8
W.A.No.35/2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
gg
W.A.No.35 of 2021
27.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 8/8
