SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Ruma Pal and C.K. Thakker, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 1310 of 2005. D/d. 18.2.2005.

Mohd. Ismail (dead) by Lrs. - Appellant

Versus

State of U.P. and others - Respondents

Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 136 - Back wages - Similarly situated persons - Appellant one of the persons dismissed from service - Supreme Court directing reinstatement of the 13 appellants therein (not including appellant) subject to existence of vacancies, and payment of back wages - High Court in later writ petition filed by appellant though allowing appellant to be appointed, not allowing back wages due to lapse of time, distinguishing order of Supreme Court dated 26.7.1989 - Held, back wages be paid to LRs of appellant on a par with the other 13 employees, for four years from termination of service of appellant.

[Paras 6 and 7]

ORDER

Ruma Pal, J. - Leave granted.

2. IA No. 5 is allowed.

3. The appellant along with thirteen others applied for the post of Assistant Urdu Teachers in Respondent 4. All of them were appointed and they joined their duties on 29-3-1985. Their services were terminated on 21-10-1985, whereupon thirteen of the appointees approached the Principal Bench of the Allahabad High Court immediately. The Allahabad High Court did not grant any relief. They then approached this Court. By an order dated 26-7-1989 this Court directed the respondents:

"To appoint the appellants to the post of teachers provided there are sufficient number of vacancies. The respondents shall also consider the question of payment of salary to these appellants for any period for which they had worked and also the question of payment to them of back wages with effect from the date their services were terminated or they ceased to be in employment."

4. As far as the appellant is concerned, however, he approached the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. Since Respondent 4 is situated outside the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench, the appellant's writ petition was transferred to the Principal Bench at Allahabad. The matter was ultimately disposed of by an order dated 22-3-2001 by which the appellant was allowed to be appointed but no back wages were granted, despite the order dated 26-7-1989 passed by this Court.

5. When the matter came up before us, we issued notice because we were prima facie of the view that the appellant was entitled to a similar relief as granted to the other 13 persons. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent stated that the case of the appellant was distinguishable as he did not join service for 16 years and this Court had reinstated others and granted back wages which was limited for a period of four years only.

6. In the meanwhile, pursuant to the High Court directions, the appellant had joined services on 2-7-2001. While the special leave petition was pending, the appellant having died, he is now represented by his legal heirs.

7. We do not think it proper to deny the appellant the right to be considered for grant of back wages. We, therefore, pass an order similar to the order dated 26-7-1989 namely that the respondent shall consider the question of payment of back wages to the widow of the appellant from the date of his termination till the date of his joining service on a par with the other 13 employees i.e. limited to a similar period of 4 years.

8. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.