# Sanghatan and another v. S.C.Sharma, 2005(2)SCC 363, the Supreme Court held that applying the aforesaid principle

- **Citation:** (2013) 1 ILRA 235
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-02-26
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10307 of 2013
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanghatan-and-another-v-s-c-sharma-2005-2-scc-363-the-supreme-court-held-that-42451
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India , Article 226-prayer
for rejoining on th post of Shikshamitraon her own she abandoned the teaching
job-due to inter cast marriage-after two
years after searching the case of Sunita
Devi who was permitted to rejoin in
similar circumstances in 2009-now the
scheme of Shikshamitra abandoned with
effect from 02.06.2010-law can not
prevent them for doing so-discovery of
theoretical incident can not be ground
part discrimination-petition dismissed.

Held: Para-5
The discretion exercised by the District
Magistrate in the matter of Sunaina Devi
was in 2009 when the Scheme of Shiksha
Mitra was in existence. The scheme has
now been abandoned on 2.6.2010. No
doubt the petitioner may have a case to
press into service on the alleged ground of
discrimination but the same does not
appear
to
be
a
legal
ground.
The
background
of
a
romantic
runaway
marriage may have been condoned by the
District Magistrate treating the period of
absence as a honeymoon holiday, but it
does not have any lawful foundation so as
to draw a similar inference. The claim
appears to be more of a movie script than
a genuine legal pursuit. If the petitioners
gave up their source of livelihood by
abandoning it for some bigger sacrifice,
the law cannot prevent them from doing
so
or
extend
any
benevolence.
The
petitioners are therefore not entitled to
any sympathy. A reunion on the post of
Shiksha Mitra in this cinematic background
after a lapse of several months through a
writ petition filed after more than two
years, on a discovery of a similar theatrical
incident, does not raise a legal ground to
examine discrimination.

## Text

1 All] Kedar Nath IInd Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bareilly and Others
235

6. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the parameter
evolved by the Supreme Court in the case
of Kanpur Electric Supply Company
Ltd. Vs. Shamim Mirza, 2009 Lab our
Industrial Cases 415, has not been taken
into consideration by the Labour Court
while denying the grant of back wages. In
the said decision the Supreme Court held
as under:

"It is true that once the order of
termination of service of an employee is
set
aside,
ordinarily
the
relief
of
reinstatement
is
available
to
him.
However, the entitlement of an employee
to get reinstated does not necessarily
result in payment of full or partial backwages,
which
is
independent
of
reinstatement. While dealing with the
prayer of back- wages, factual scenario,
equity and good conscience and a number
of other factors, like the manner of
selection; nature of appointment; the
period for which the employee has
worked with the employer etc.; have to be
kept in view. All these factors are
illustrative and no precise formula can be
laid down as to under what circumstances
full or partial back-wages should be
awarded. It depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case."

7. Similarly in General Manager,
Haryana Roadways vs. Rudhan Singh,
2005 (5) SCC 591, the Supreme Court
held that there cannot be a straight jacket
formula for awarding the relief of back
wages and that an order of back wages
should not be passed in a mechanical
manner. A host of factors like manner,
method of selection and appointment and
nature of appointment whether adhoc,
short term daily wages, temporary or
permanent and length of service should be
taken into consideration before granting
back wages.

8. Similarly in Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sanghatan
and
another
vs.
S.C.Sharma,
2005(2)SCC
363,
the
Supreme Court held that applying the
aforesaid
principle
the
inevitable
conclusion is, that the respondent was not
entitled
to
full
back
wages.
For
determining the entitlement of back
wages the employee has to show that he
was not gainfully employed and that the
initial burden was on him.

9. In the instance case the Labour
Court has held that there is a presumption
that the workman was gainfully employed
as he was a driver. No evidence has been
filed by the Workman before the Labour
Court to indicate that he was not gainfully
employed during the intervening period.
Further, there is nothing on record to
show the nature of the appointment of the
workman, the length of appointment and
whether the workman was appointed on a
temporary or a permanent post. In the
absence of all these evidence, this Court
does not find any reason to interfere in the
impugned award.

10. Writ petition fails summarily
and is dismissed.
---------
 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.02.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10307 of 2013

Priyanka Pandey And Anr.
...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P.Thru Secy & Ors...Respondents
236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.K.S.Kushwaha
Sri M.A.Ausaf

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri R.B.Pradhan

Constitution of India , Article 226-prayer
for rejoining on th post of Shikshamitraon her own she abandoned the teaching
job-due to inter cast marriage-after two
years after searching the case of Sunita
Devi who was permitted to rejoin in
similar circumstances in 2009-now the
scheme of Shikshamitra abandoned with
effect from 02.06.2010-law can not
prevent them for doing so-discovery of
theoretical incident can not be ground
part discrimination-petition dismissed.

Held: Para-5
The discretion exercised by the District
Magistrate in the matter of Sunaina Devi
was in 2009 when the Scheme of Shiksha
Mitra was in existence. The scheme has
now been abandoned on 2.6.2010. No
doubt the petitioner may have a case to
press into service on the alleged ground of
discrimination but the same does not
appear
to
be
a
legal
ground.
The
background
of
a
romantic
runaway
marriage may have been condoned by the
District Magistrate treating the period of
absence as a honeymoon holiday, but it
does not have any lawful foundation so as
to draw a similar inference. The claim
appears to be more of a movie script than
a genuine legal pursuit. If the petitioners
gave up their source of livelihood by
abandoning it for some bigger sacrifice,
the law cannot prevent them from doing
so
or
extend
any
benevolence.
The
petitioners are therefore not entitled to
any sympathy. A reunion on the post of
Shiksha Mitra in this cinematic background
after a lapse of several months through a
writ petition filed after more than two
years, on a discovery of a similar theatrical
incident, does not raise a legal ground to
examine discrimination.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Kushwaha for the
petitioner and Sri R.B.Pradhan for the
respondent. This is a case from the eastern
conservative district of Ghazipur.

2. The petitioners appear to be
engaged as Shiksha Mitra in the year
2008. They worked and received their
honraria. It appears that the petitioners
came closer and also got married. It is
alleged that the tying of the nuptial knot
was against the wishes of their families,as
it was an inter caste union and this
pressure compelled them to leave the
Village in 2010 thereby abandoning their
teaching job.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that in a similar matter of
Sunaina Devi and her husband, the
District Magistrate passed an order
permitting them to rejoin the institution. It
is alleged that in the said case also the
Shiksha Mitra and her husband had
married against the wishes of their
parents.

4. One wonders what happens in
primary schools where some other forms
of friendship flourish between Shiksha
Mitra's of the opposite sex at the cost of
basic education. Such activities should not
be encouraged by conceding in favour of
romanticism. This is not to criticize about
any body's private life, but to prevent any
wrong message flowing from a public
performance that too in the School of tiny
tots. After all a decent level of morality
has to be maintained especially in a
primary education institution where the
first foundations of an innocent mind are
laid. To allow this form of preaching to be
1 All] Priyanka Pandey And Anr. Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. & Ors.
237
visibly
practiced
before
youngsters
between the age of 5 and 12, is to add to
their mental misery that is already beset
with pitfalls of daily television viewing at
home. It might have an adverse effect
added and topped up with the parents and
guardians contributing to this exercise.
Modern advances in life, like the freedom
of choice of a life partner, is too serious a
subject matter to be made a gossip
between children of an unripe and
premature age.

5. The discretion exercised by the
District Magistrate in the matter of
Sunaina Devi was in 2009 when the
Scheme
of
Shiksha Mitra
was
in
existence. The scheme has now been
abandoned on 2.6.2010. No doubt the
petitioner may have a case to press into
service
on
the
alleged
ground
of
discrimination but the same does not
appear to be a legal ground. The
background of a romantic runaway
marriage may have been condoned by the
District Magistrate treating the period of
absence as a honeymoon holiday, but it
does not have any lawful foundation so as
to draw a similar inference. The claim
appears to be more of a movie script than
a genuine legal pursuit. If the petitioners
gave up their source of livelihood by
abandoning it for some bigger sacrifice,
the law cannot prevent them from doing
so or extend any benevolence. The
petitioners are therefore not entitled to
any sympathy. A reunion on the post of
Shiksha
Mitra
in
this
cinematic
background after a lapse of several
months through a writ petition filed after
more than two years, on a discovery of a
similar theatrical incident, does not raise a
legal ground to examine discrimination.

6. The scheme of Shiksha Mitra
having been abandoned the claim of the
petitioners cannot succeed.

7. The writ petition lacks merit and
is accordingly dismissed.
---------
 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.02.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE B. AMIT STHALEKAR,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13889 of 2003

Lakhan Lal Mishra & Another...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru' Agricultural & Revenue
Secretary & Ors ....Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Indra Raj Singh
Sri Pradeep Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Imposition of Ceiling and Land
Holding Act 1960 Section 10(2)-second
notice
ignoring
earlier
order
dated
25.11.1976
by which the proceeding
between same tender holder in respect of
same plot in absence of additional fact
under section 13-A of the Act-second
notice not maintainable-petition allowed.

Held: Para-7

 From a perusal of the impugned notice
dated 4.3.2003, it is not indicated as to
what fresh grounds have been taken by the
Authority for reopening the case for
declaration of land of the petitioner tenure
holder or his heirs as surplus and therefore
it is not a case whether the respondent
could have resorted to proceedings under
Section 13 -A of the Act, 1960. This fact has
not been disputed by the learned Standing
Counsel either.