# State Of U.P. & Anr v. Ravindra Nath Mishra & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 3 ILRA 638
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-02-24
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. Yashwant Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-anr-v-ravindra-nath-mishra-ors-43496
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

638 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
intact. The report advised that the case 'can be considered fit as per the medical parameters
set by a particular service for which the candidate opts for'. Thus even the report of the
independent Board did not support the case of the respondent.

13. For the reasons which we have indicated, we are of the view that the special appeal
would have to be allowed. The special appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned
judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15 September 2015 is set aside. The writ petition
filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. A copy of this order be placed on the record of
the writ petition.

14. There shall be no order as to costs.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.02.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.

Special Appeal Defective NO. 159 OF 2016

State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Ravindra Nath Mishra & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Appellants:-
Piyush Shukla

Counsel for Respondents:-
Subhash Singh Yadav

Proceedings
This special appeal has arisen from the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 24
March 2015, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents seeking payment of back wages for
the period from 14 October 1977 to 1 June 2000 was allowed. The Division Bench is called upon to
examine whether the respondents were legally entitled to back wages in light of the prior
reinstatement orders, the statutory framework governing service matters, and binding precedents of
this Court and the Supreme Court. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel on both
sides, the appeal is allowed in part, and the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge for fresh
disposal in accordance with law and precedents.

Procedure
The factual background reveals that the respondents, who were serving as Constables in the
Provincial Armed Constabulary, were terminated on 14 October 1977 on the alleged ground of
participation in a revolt that had occurred in 1973. The respondents filed claim petitions before the
Public Services Tribunal which were dismissed on 19 January 1998. Subsequent to a Division Bench
judgment in 2000, the termination orders and the Tribunal's dismissal were quashed, and the
respondents were reinstated with retrospective effect. Thereafter, the respondents filed
3 All. State Of U.P. & Anr. Vs Ravindra Nath Mishra & Ors.
639
representations and writ petitions in 2002 and 2009 seeking payment of back wages, which were
rejected by the competent authority. Despite these prior rejections, the learned Single Judge allowed
the writ petition in 2015, directing that back wages be paid for the period of 1977 to 2000. The
present special appeal challenges this order.

Sections

None - service law matter (disciplinary termination, back wages).

Case Law Cited

Vijay Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. - relied on by Single Judge.
Mahendra Nath Tewari v. State of U.P. - Single Judge/DB had allowed back wages; Supreme Court
later set aside grant of back wages (Civil Appeal No. 2186/2007).
State of U.P. v. Chandrika Yadav - SC rejected back wages in similar PAC revolt matters.
State of U.P. v. Ayodhya Rai - SC again refused back wages (2010).

Head Notes

Service Law - Termination - Reinstatement - Back Wages
Absence of an express direction regarding back wages in earlier reinstatement order is material.
Multiple earlier rejections of representations for back wages could not be ignored. Supreme Court's
jurisprudence in similar PAC revolt cases uniformly denies back wages. Matter remitted to Single Judge
as relevant precedents and factual background were not placed before the Court earlier.
Delay Condonation
293 days' delay sufficiently explained; condoned.

Facts

Respondent, a PAC constable, was terminated in 1977 for alleged involvement in a 1973 revolt.
Tribunal upheld termination (1998).
Division Bench quashed termination (1999) but did not grant back wages.
Respondent reinstated in 2000.
Respondent repeatedly sought back wages (2002, 2009); authorities rejected his representations.
Single Judge (2015) allowed writ and granted full back wages relying solely on Vijay Bahadur Singh.
State appealed, arguing that Supreme Court had consistently denied back wages in identical matters.

Contentions

Appellant (State)
Single Judge ignored critical facts:
Division Bench's reinstatement order had no direction on back wages.
Earlier representation (2002) had already been rejected.
The Court in 2009 was not told about the 2002 rejection.
Supreme Court judgments in Mahendra Nath Tewari, Chandrika Yadav, and Ayodhya Rai prohibit back
wages in PAC revolt cases.
The Single Judge relied blindly on Vijay Bahadur Singh without considering binding Supreme Court
rulings.
Respondent
Relied on Vijay Bahadur Singh where similarly situated constables received reinstatement with
benefits.
Pointed to 2004 DGP communication allegedly granting back wages to some officers.
640 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Analysis

Absence of Back Wage Direction (1999 Order)- The Division Bench's original reinstatement
order did not award back wages. This omission is important because reinstatement alone does not
automatically imply entitlement to back wages.
Earlier Rejection of Claim (2002)- The respondent's first representation seeking back wages was
already rejected in 2002, and this fact should have been considered by the Single Judge before
granting relief.
Procedural Misapprehension (2009 Writ)- In 2009, the Court ordered reconsideration without
knowing that the claim was already rejected in 2002. This procedural duplication affects the legitimacy
of the 2015 order.
Binding Supreme Court Precedents Ignored- In identical PAC revolt matters (Mahendra Nath
Tewari, Chandrika Yadav, Ayodhya Rai), the Supreme Court explicitly refused back wages. These
precedents override the High Court's judgment in Vijay Bahadur Singh, making the Single Judge's
reliance on it legally unsustainable.
Equitable Considerations- The long delay between termination (1977) and reinstatement (2000)
weakens the claim for full back wages.
Administrative Consistency Argument- The respondent cited a 2004 DGP communication. The
State asserted it applied only to Vijay Bahadur Singh. Since clarity is lacking, remanding the issue for
factual examination is appropriate.
Appropriate Remedy: Remand- Considering that:
vital facts were not before the Single Judge,
binding Supreme Court decisions were overlooked,
and factual issues require further inquiry, the Division Bench correctly decided to remit the matter for
fresh adjudication.
Delay Condonation Justified- The Court found the explanation reasonable and condoned the 293day delay.

Conclusion

Impugned judgment dated 24 March 2015 is set aside.
Proceedings remitted to learned Single Judge for fresh disposal, considering all relevant Supreme
Court and Division Bench decisions.
Writ-A No.7290 of 2010 restored to the file of learned Single Judge.
No order as to costs.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.
&
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J.)

1. This special appeal has arisen from a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge
dated 24 March 2015. Briefly stated, the services of the respondent who was a Constable in
the Provincial Armed Constabulary1 were terminated on 14 October 1977 on the ground
that he had been involved in a revolt which had taken place in 1973. The respondent filed a
claim petition before the Public Services Tribunal2. The Tribunal dismissed the claim
petition by an order dated 19 January 1998. A writ petition was filed by the respondent to
challenge the order of the Tribunal.

2. A writ petition was filed before this Court by one Vijay Bahadur Singh who was
similarly circumstanced. A learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 26
3 All. State Of U.P. & Anr. Vs Ravindra Nath Mishra & Ors.
641
September 1997 allowed the writ petition and while setting aside the order of termination
directed the State to reinstate the petitioner in those proceedings with full benefits with
retrospective effect.

3. In the writ petition filed by the respondent, the Division Bench while allowing the
writ petition issued the following directions :

"Impugned termination order dated 14.10.1977 and the order of the Tribunal dated
19.01.1998 are quashed."

4. Following the order of the Division Bench, the respondent was reinstated on 21 June
2000. The respondent then filed a writ petition in 2002 for a mandamus seeking the payment
of back wages for the period between 14 October 1977 and 20 June 2000. By an order of the
learned Single Judge dated 20 May 2002, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction
to decide the representation of the respondent within three months. In terms of the order of
the Division Bench, the respondent submitted a representation on 7 June 2002. The
representation was rejected on 10 June 2002 by the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Bareilly. The order of the Division Bench setting aside the termination of the respondent is
the subject matter of a special leave petition which was filed by the State.

5. Once again, the respondent filed a writ petition in 2009 for the payment of back
wages for the period between 1977 and 2000. This writ petition was disposed of by a
learned Single Judge on 29 July 2009 with a direction to the State to decide the
representation of the respondent in pursuance of the directions of this Court. The
representation submitted by the respondent on 27 August 2009 was rejected on 9 November
2009. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the order rejecting his representation.

6. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned
judgment dated 24 March 2015. The order rejecting the representation of the respondent
dated 9 November 2009 was quashed and set aside. The writ petition was allowed with the
direction that the respondent would be entitled to full back wages from 14 October 1977 to 1
June 2000. The State is in appeal.

7. The sole basis on which the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition is the
judgment in Vijay Bahadur Singh vs. State of U.P.3

8. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the State in appeal by the learned
Chief Standing Counsel is that this view of the learned Single Judge has failed to take into
account several relevant circumstances.

9. Having found substance in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the
State and after hearing both the learned counsel, we now indicate our reasons for holding
that there were material aspects of the case which should have been, but have not been
considered by the learned Single Judge.
642 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. The first aspect of the matter which would warrant consideration by the learned
Single Judge is the order of the Division Bench in the case of the respondent himself dated 4
November 1999 which set aside the termination and quashed the order of the Tribunal.
There is no specific direction in the order of the Division Bench in regard to the grant of
back wages. Secondly, following the order of reinstatement, the respondent had filed a
representation seeking back wages in 2002 which was disposed of without acceding to the
claim of the respondent for the payment of back wages. Thirdly sometime in 2009 the
respondent filed a writ petition seeking the payment of back wages upon which a direction
was issued for consideration of the representation. Perhaps at that stage, the Court was not
apprised of the fact that the claim for back wages had already been disposed of in the order
dated 10 June 2002. Nevertheless in terms of the directions issued by the learned Single
Judge, the claim for back wages was again rejected on 9 November 2009.

11. Apart from these facts another material aspect of the controversy which would need
to be considered is the fact that a learned Single Judge of this Court in Mahendra Nath
Tewari vs. State of U.P.4 allowed a writ petition on 5 November 1999 in terms of the
decision in Vijay Bahadur Singh (supra). This decision was challenged in appeal and the
Division Bench confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16 October 2006.
The State Government carried the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court. By a judgment and
order dated 17 December 2009, the Supreme Court set aside the order for the payment of
back wages in Civil Appeal No.2186 of 2007. A similar view was taken by the Supreme
Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Chandrika Yadav5. In an appeal against the judgment
of a Division Bench of this Court dated 5 October 2010 awarding reinstatement with back
wages, the Supreme Court followed the earlier decision in Mahendra Nath Tewari (supra)
and held that back wages would not be allowed. The learned Chief Standing Counsel has
also placed on the record another order dated 15 February 2010 of the Supreme Court in
State of U.P. vs. Ayodhya Rai6 where back wages were not allowed.

12. Evidently, this background particularly the judgments of the Supreme Court in
Mahendra Nath Tewari (supra) and Chandrika Yadav (supra) were not placed before the
learned Single Judge. This would have a tangible bearing on the issue as to whether the
respondent would be entitled to back wages. Hence, we are inclined to remit the proceedings
back to the learned Single Judge for disposal afresh having due regard to the fact that the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has also drawn the attention of the
Court to a communication issued on 27 September 2004 by the Director General of Police
granting back wages to a group of employees. The learned Chief Standing Counsel states
that this was done only in the case of Vijay Bahadur Singh (supra). However, we are of the
view that since this is an aspect which would require some scrutiny, it would be appropriate
and proper if permission is granted to the State to file a counter affidavit in that regard
before the learned Single Judge.

13. For these reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 24 March
2015 and remit the proceedings back to the learned Single Judge for disposal afresh, having
due regard to the observations contained in this judgment. Writ - A No.7290 of 2010 is
restored to the file of the learned Single Judge.
3 All. Srikant Tripathi Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
643

14. The special appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.12.2015

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J.
THE HON'BLE RAGHVENDRA KUMAR, J.

Writ C No. - 62660 of 2015

Srikant Tripathi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner:
Sri Madan Lal Srivastava

Counsel for Respondents:
C.S.C.

UP Minor Minerals Concession Rules 1963 - No Landowner Consent Required - Challenge to DM
Sonbhadra's advertisement dated 16.9.2015 inviting mining lease applications for plot nos. 4783,
4785, 4786, 4787, 4811, 4812 and 4813 (3.40 acres, Billi Markundi) - Held, R.3 mandates
lease/permit for mining; R.67 entitles co-landowner only to compensation (not consent/NOC);
landowner cannot prohibit operations. (Paras 1-3)

Writ Dismissed in Limine - No merit

List of Cases cited:

Bhagwan Dass Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SC 1393

(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
&
Hon'ble Raghvendra Kumar, J.)

1. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the
advertisement dated 16.09.2015 issued by District Magistrate, Sonbhadra, respondent no. 2
inviting application for grant of mining lease in respect of plot nos. 4783, 4785, 4786, 4787,
4811, 4812 and 4813, area 3.40 acre situate at village Billi Markundi, Tehsil Robertsganj,
District Sonbhadra (hereinafter referred to as the 'plots in dispute').

2. According to the pleadings set out in the writ petition, the plots in dispute were
jointly owned by one Ramdev and one Ghoorahu, father of respondent nos. 5 and 6, each
having half share in the plots in dispute. Ramdev is alleged to have transferred his half share