JUDGMENT : Dr. D.P. Choudhury, J. 1. Challenge has been made to the order dated 29.9.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.17171 of 2011. FACTS 2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the appellant, in this appeal, is that the appellant is a highly qualified and reputed professor in the stream of Biotechnology employed in United States of America. On being offered a post at KIIT University, he joined as Associate Professor, KIIT School of Biotechnology on terms and conditions as mentioned in the offer of appointment. It is profitable to mention that on 29.5.2010, the appellant was issued with the appointment letter in the pay band of Rs.15,600/-to Rs. 39,100/- with grade pay of Rs.7,000/- and gross salary of Rs. 46,089/-. On 28.7.2010, the appellant joined the post and continued as a probationer as a part of the condition of the service. While continuing as a probationer, the appellant found slow progress in the development activities and further noticed regarding unethical evaluation of the answer papers of the students of the University. In spite of his protest to stop such unhealthy management, there became strain relationship between the appellant and the respondent-University. 3. Be it stated that the appellant could come to know by receiving copies of the documents under the Right to Information Act of the University, instead of going ahead with the strong objection to the unhealthy atmosphere of the University pointed out by the appellant, constituted an Enquiry Committee on 3.6.2011 to conduct an enquiry against the appellant and gave opinion without affording any opportunity of being heard to the appellant to the effect that his conduct is highly unbecoming of a responsible faculty member of the University. On 20.6.2011, to the utter surprise of the appellant, a letter of termination was issued to him and on 21.6.2011, the appellant submitted a representation protesting his termination as illegal, arbitrary and tainted with mala fide and sheer violation of principles of natural justice. On 23.6.2011, the appellant sought for some documents and information from the University vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition. On 23.6.2011, the appellant sought for some documents and information from the University vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition. Since the authorities did not decide the representation of the appellant, he was compelled to file W.P.(C) No.17171 of 2011, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 29.9.2014 by quashing the order of termination and consequently he was directed to reinstate with continuity of service from the date of termination and pay only 60% of back wages since the appellant has not worked all those periods. 4. On the other hand, the case of the respondent-University is that the University being a Deemed University having autonomous status and KIIT School of Bio-Technology being an institution, a part of such University, is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is the further case of the University that the appellant was on probation being under the service contract. Before completion of the probation period, he was terminated for which no notice was necessary to be served while conducting In-house Enquiry. When the In-house Committee found him guilty, he was issued with the termination order. 5. The respondent-University Grants Commission (UGC) has also placed its case stating that as per Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, the KIIT has been recognized as a Deemed University under Section 2(a) of the said Act. It is stated by this respondent that the Central Government may, on advise of the Commission, declare any individual institution for higher education other than University under the UGC Act and for promotion and co-ordination of University, as it thinks fit. In the impugned order, learned Single Judge, after taking the pleadings of both parties into consideration, framed the following three questions for answer: “(i) Whether the opposite party no.1 University is a “State” and or “Other Authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is thus amenable to this Court? (ii) Whether the order of termination vide Annexure-4 required an enquiry with opportunity of showing cause to the victim before the order of termination was passed and as such Annexure-4 suffers on account of violation of principle of natural justice? (ii) Whether the order of termination vide Annexure-4 required an enquiry with opportunity of showing cause to the victim before the order of termination was passed and as such Annexure-4 suffers on account of violation of principle of natural justice? (iii) Whether the order of termination vide Annexure-1 attached any stigma, affecting all through the life of the petitioner and for affecting Fundamental Right of a person, a writ can be enforceable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?” 6. While answering Point No.i, the learned Single Judge observed that the University being a creature of a statute and since performing public duty comes well within the meaning of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, they are amenable to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, learned Single Judge, while answering Point No.ii, hold that the order of termination/dismissal passed in the case of appellant is unsustainable due to non-compliance of principles of natural justice. While answering Point No.iii, learned Single Judge answered in affirmative by reiterating that the termination order vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition cannot be sustained due to non-compliance of principles of natural justice and consequently, learned Single Judge set aside the order of termination and directed for reinstatement of the appellant and further held that his period of termination being continuous service, he should be paid 60% back wages. 7. Against the order of the learned Single Judge, a review petition bearing RVWPET No.172 of 2014 was filed, but the same was later on dismissed as withdrawn. 8. The appellant only challenges the order of the learned Single Judge with regard to the direction for payment of 60% back wages as he was entitled to receive 100% back wages when order of termination was declared as illegal. 9. The University Grants Commission filed cross-objection stating therein that under UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulation, 2010, it has been clearly stated in Clause 11.0 about the period of probation and confirmation. Except bringing such provisions to the knowledge of the Court, the UGC has nothing to say either in the writ petition or in the writ appeal. 10. Mr. Except bringing such provisions to the knowledge of the Court, the UGC has nothing to say either in the writ petition or in the writ appeal. 10. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant contended that observation and the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while refusing to grant 100% back wages. 11. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that when the University has illegally taken away the right of the appellant contrary to the relevant laws and deprive him from his earnings, the appellant should be restored to his job in the event of quashing of his termination with full back wages. Had the appellant continued in service, he could have earned his full salary to maintain his livelihood, but because of the illegal termination order, his continuity in service comes to a halt and the learned Single Judge, considering this aspect, should have allowed full back wages. He further submitted that the University has discriminated the appellant while giving appointment to one Dr. M. Suar, who is academically junior to the appellant as professor whereas the appellant was given a post of Associate Professor. On this aspect being appreciated by the learned Single Judge, the appellant could have been awarded 100% back wages while quashing the termination order issued against him. He relied upon the decision reported in the case of Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi –V- M/s.Hindalco Industries Ltd; AIR 2014 SC 2258 , where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to award full back wages to the appellant therein from the date of termination from service till the date of his reinstatement and other consequential benefits which accrued to him by virtue of his employment with the respondent-company. 12. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant further cited the decision in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase –V-Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) and Others; (2013) 10 SCC 324 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the management to pay full back wages to the appellant failing which it shall have to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant further cited the decision in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase –V-Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) and Others; (2013) 10 SCC 324 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the management to pay full back wages to the appellant failing which it shall have to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum. In support of his submission, he relies on the decisions in the case of Pradip Kumar –V- Union of India and others; (2012) 13 SCC 182 , Dipti Prakash Banerjee –V- Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Callcutta and others; AIR 1999 SC 983 , V.P. Ahuja –V- State of Punjab and Others; AIR 2000 SC 1080 and Tapas Kumar Paul –VBSNL & another; Civil Appeal No.4980 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.15357 of 2013). 13. While on the above decisions, Mr. Mukherjee contended that the termination of the appellant being declared as illegal by not following the principles of natural justice, the appellant should be allowed full back wages with interest thereon. So, the judgment of the learned Single Judge for not giving full back wages is illegal and improper and liable to be interfered with. He submitted that at paragraph-27 of the judgment, the learned Single Judge, while quashing the impugned termination order, has observed that the petitioner be deemed to be continuing in service for the entire period, i.e, with effect from 28.7.2011, the date of his one year probation being completed on 27.7.2011 should have been clarified in the impugned judgment and the same should be clarified in this writ appeal. Unless the impugned judgment/order regarding 60% back wages is modified to be payable with 100% back wages along with consequential benefits, i.e, regularization of the appellant’s service after completion of the probation period and promotion and equities, the appellant will suffer from irreparable loss and injury. So, he submitted to modify the order of the learned Single Judge by enhancing the 60% back wages to 100% back wages with consequential benefits and the same should be paid with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 14. Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senior Advocate for the University submitted that the University is completely an independent and autonomous and is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. 14. Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senior Advocate for the University submitted that the University is completely an independent and autonomous and is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. On the other hand, the word “State” in Article 12 of the Constitution of India does not include the respondents-University. Since the University is not getting any aid or assistance from the Central Government or State Government, it cannot come under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. He further contended that the learned Single Judge has not considered this plea with proper perspective. In support of his contention, he cited decisions in the case of Pradip Kumar Biswas –V-Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and others; (2002) 5 SCC 111 , Zee Film Industries Limited and another –V-Union of India and others; (2005) 4 SCC 649 and a decision of this Court in the case of Dibakar Mohapatra –V-Xavier Institute of Management (W.P.(C) No.5614 of 2008). 15. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate for the KIIT University further submitted that when the appellant was on probation, his service was not regular and in case of one temporary employee, the In-house Enquiry can be conducted without any notice to the concerned employee. Since there is unbecoming conduct on the part of the faculty member and it was found to be true after due enquiry, there is no illegality in the finding of the Committee. As per conditions of service of the appellant, an employee in probation can be terminated without any notice to the employee concerned. In view of the service of the appellant being a temporary one, particularly when he is in probation, there is no illegality in terminating him from his service. Of course, learned Single Jude has failed to appreciate this aspect and illegally set aside the order of termination. 16. He further asserted that the learned Single Judge has rightly not allowed the full back wages because the appellant was on probation and there is truthfulness in the charge made against him. So, the claim of the appellant for full back wages is misconceived and against principles of law. In this regard, he supports the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and prays to reject the writ appeal. 17. Mr. So, the claim of the appellant for full back wages is misconceived and against principles of law. In this regard, he supports the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and prays to reject the writ appeal. 17. Mr. J.K. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the UGC submitted that there is provision under the UGC Regulation, 2010 that the faculty member can be appointed on probation for a period of one year and the probation period can be extended for a maximum period of another one year in case of satisfactory performance. He further submitted that under Clause 11.3, the confirmation of an incumbent has to be issued by the institution within 45 days of completion of probationary period after due process of verification of satisfactory performance. The probation and confirmation rules are applicable at the initial stage of the recruitment issued from time to time. 18. POINT FOR DETERMINATION Since the respondent-KIIT has not filed any cross-appeal and cross-objection and the UGC has also not challenged the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in specific manner except filing cross-objection showing the rule, the dispute in this writ appeal narrows down to the point for determination whether the appellant is entitled to full back wages or 60% back wages, as granted by the learned Single Judge. 19. DISCUSSION The appellant had filed a review petition to make review of the order of the learned Single Judge but subsequently, he has withdrawn the same and the learned Single Judge allowed the withdrawal of the review petition after passing order for correction of some typographical error in the judgment. 20. Paragraphs-26 and 27 of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is placed below for better appreciation: “26.Now coming to answer on point no.iii, I find that the services of the petitioner was terminated by order dated 20.6.2011 as appearing at Annexure-4. Though the said order did not attach any stigma but, while answering to the pleadings of the petitioner the opposite party nos.1 to 4 in their counter affidavit submitted that before the order of termination vide Annexure-1 was passed the case of the petitioner was being examined by an in-house Enquiry Committee, who have an unanimous opinion that the conduct of Dr. Uttam Kumar Samanta, the petitioner has not been satisfactory and is highly unbecoming of a responsible faculty member of the university as clearly appearing at Annexure-C/1. It is based on such report his service was terminated vide Annexure-4. Thus, in my considered opinion even though the order of termination did not attach any stigma yet in view of finding of the Enquiry Committee as appearing at Annexure-C/1 with the strengthening of Right to Information Act and transparency in the actions the future of the petitioner is very much likely to be jeopardized. As such after coming to the above finding which finding was arrived at by an internal enquiry committee held behind the back of the petitioner, law minimum requires compliance of natural justice by at least affording an opportunity to the petitioner before issuing the terminal order vide Annexure-4 for this the termination order vide Annexure-4 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. My such view also gets support of Hon’bl Apex Court decision vide AIR 2000 SC 1080 where in para-7, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that order of termination attaching stigma needs compulsory compliance of principles of natural justice. Under the circumstances, I answer point no.iii also in favour of the petitioner and against the opposite parties. 27. In view of my findings on point no.i vide paragraphs 22, 23 and 24, my findings on point no.ii at para-25 and my findings on point no.iii at para-26 while allowing the writ petition, I set aside the impugned orders at Annexure-4 of the writ petition as well as the consequential order as appearing at Annexure-6 of the writ petition, I further declare that the petitioner whose services has been taken away by order under Annexur-4 be deemed to be continuing in service for the entire period but since he has not worked for all these period he may be paid 60% back wages. Xxx xxx xxx xxx” 21. From the aforesaid observations, it is clear that the order of termination was illegal because of violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant is deemed to be continued in service for the entire period. While awarding 60% of back wages for the entire period, the appellant was terminated from service but no reasons has been assigned in the impugned judgment as to why the full back wages has not been granted. 22. While awarding 60% of back wages for the entire period, the appellant was terminated from service but no reasons has been assigned in the impugned judgment as to why the full back wages has not been granted. 22. It is reported in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase –V- Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) & others; (2013) 10 SCC 324 where Their Lordships at paragraph 23 has observed in the following manner: 23. A somewhat similar issue was considered by a three Judge Bench in Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd (1979) 2 SCC 80 in the context of termination of services of 56 employees by way of retrenchment due to alleged non-availability of the raw material necessary for utilization of full installed capacity by the petitioner. The dispute raised by the employees resulted in award of reinstatement with full back wages. This Court examined the issue at length and held: “xxx xxx xxx The relief of reinstatement with continuity of service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It would mean that the employer has taken away illegally the right to work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously deprived the workman of his earnings. If thus the employer is found to be in the wrong as a result of which the workman is directed to be reinstated, the employer could not shirk his responsibility of paying the wages which the workman has been deprived of by the illegal or invalid action of the employer. Xxx xxx xxx Ordinarily, therefore, a workman whose service has been illegally terminated would be entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness. That is the normal rule. Any other view would be a premium on the unwarranted litigative activity of the employer. If the employer terminates the service illegally and the termination is motivated as in this case viz. to resist the workmen’s demand for revision of wages, the termination may well amount to unfair labour practice. In such circumstances reinstatement being the normal rule, it should be followed with full back wages. Xxx xxx xxx In the very nature of things there cannot be a straitjacket formula for awarding relief of back wages. All relevant considerations will enter the verdict. In such circumstances reinstatement being the normal rule, it should be followed with full back wages. Xxx xxx xxx In the very nature of things there cannot be a straitjacket formula for awarding relief of back wages. All relevant considerations will enter the verdict. More or less, it would be a motion addressed to the discretion of the Tribunal. Full back wages would be the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure. Xxx xxx xxx Further, Their Lordships at paragraphs-29 and 31 of the said judgment have observed as follows: “29. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. S. C. Sharma (2005) 2 SCC 363 , the Court found that the services of the respondent had been terminated under Rule 19(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 on the charge that he was absconding from duty. The Central Administrative Tribunal held that no material was available with the disciplinary authority which could justify invoking of Rule 19(ii) and the order of dismissal could not have been passed without holding regular inquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court did not accept the appellants’ contention that invoking of Rule 19(ii) was justified merely because the respondent did not respond to the notices issued to him and did not offer any explanation for his willful absence from duty for more than two years. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition. The High Court further held that even though the respondent-employee had not pleaded or produced any evidence that after dismissal from service, he was not gainfully employed, back wages cannot be denied to him. This Court relied upon some of the earlier judgments and held that in view of the respondent’s failure to discharge the initial burden to show that he was not gainfully employed, there was ample justification to deny him back wages, more so because he had absconded from duty for a long period of two years.” Xxx xxx xxx 31. In U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479 , the two Judge Bench observed: “No precise formula can be laid down as to under what circumstances payment of entire back wages should be allowed. Indisputably, it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479 , the two Judge Bench observed: “No precise formula can be laid down as to under what circumstances payment of entire back wages should be allowed. Indisputably, it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It would, however, not be correct to contend that it is automatic. It should not be granted mechanically only because on technical grounds or otherwise an order of termination is found to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.” Further, Their Lordship at paragraph-37 of the said judgment has observed as follows: “37. xxx xxx xxx Coming back to back wages, even if the court finds it necessary to award back wages, the question will be whether back wages should be awarded fully or only partially (and if so the percentage). That depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Any income received by the employee during the relevant period on account of alternative employment or business is a relevant factor to be taken note of while awarding back wages, in addition to the several factors mentioned in Rudhan Singh and Uday Narain Pandey. Therefore, it is necessary for the employee to plead that he was not gainfully employed from the date of his termination. While an employee cannot be asked to prove the negative, he has to at least assert on oath that he was neither employed nor engaged in any gainful business or venture and that he did not have any income. Then the burden will shift to the employer. Xxx xxx xxx” Finally, Their Lordship at paragraph-38 have observed as follows: “38. The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are: (i) In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule. (ii) The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicating authority or the Court may take into consideration the length of service of the employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/workman, the financial condition of the employer and similar other factors. (ii) The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicating authority or the Court may take into consideration the length of service of the employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/workman, the financial condition of the employer and similar other factors. (iii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments. (iv) The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal exercises power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even though the enquiry held against the employee/workman is consistent with the rules of natural justice and/or certified standing orders, if any, but holds that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct found proved, then it will have the discretion not to award full back wages. However, if the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the employee or workman is not at all guilty of any misconduct or that the employer had foisted a false charge, then there will be ample justification for award of full back wages. (v) The cases in which the competent Court or Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman, then the concerned Court or Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. (v) The cases in which the competent Court or Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman, then the concerned Court or Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the superior Courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc., merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer’s obligation to pay the same. The Courts must always be kept in view that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages. (vi) In a number of cases, the superior Courts have interfered with the award of the primary adjudicatory authority on the premise that finalization of litigation has taken long time ignoring that in majority of cases the parties are not responsible for such delays. Lack of infrastructure and manpower is the principal cause for delay in the disposal of cases. For this the litigants cannot be blamed or penalised. It would amount to grave injustice to an employee or workman if he is denied back wages simply because there is long lapse of time between the termination of his service and finality given to the order of reinstatement. The Courts should bear in mind that in most of these cases, the employer is in an advantageous position vis-à-vis the employee or workman. He can avail the services of best legal brain for prolonging the agony of the sufferer, i.e., the employee or workman, who can ill afford the luxury of spending money on a lawyer with certain amount of fame. Therefore, in such cases it would be prudent to adopt the course suggested in Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (supra). Therefore, in such cases it would be prudent to adopt the course suggested in Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (supra). (vii) The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal (2007) 2 SCC 433 that on reinstatement the employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of right is contrary to the ratio of the judgments of three Judge Benches referred to hereinabove and cannot be treated as good law. This part of the judgment is also against the very concept of reinstatement of an employee/workman.” 24. With due regard to the aforesaid decision, in the instant case, although the learned Single Judge has been pleased to find out that due to violation of principles of natural justice, the termination is illegal but no reason has been assigned as to why the 60% back wages would be awarded. Also, the petitioner has not placed his case that during termination period, he was sitting idle or not employed elsewhere to earn money because in the aforesaid decision, it is clear that the employee, while placing the case for back wages, has to plead the case that he was not engaged in any gainful business or during that period he had no income, after discharging such burden, the burden shifts upon the employer. It is also clear from the aforesaid decision that there is no straight jacket formula to award the full back wages which is normal rule. When the appellant has neither pleaded the case before the learned Single Judge to discharge his onus as to any alternative employment or the business during his interregnum period, i.e, after the order of termination passed and till he is reinstated, the claim of full back wages cannot be automatic. 25. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the termination is illegal and he is deemed to be continued in service, he should be paid full back wages. There is nothing contended by the learned counsel for the appellant or pleaded in conformity with the requirements of law as propounded by in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase (Supra) to discharge onus by the appellant to claim full back wages. There is nothing contended by the learned counsel for the appellant or pleaded in conformity with the requirements of law as propounded by in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase (Supra) to discharge onus by the appellant to claim full back wages. Even if the leaned Single Judge has awarded 60% back wages without assigning any reason, we are of the view that the same has been passed by keeping in view the illegality committed by the University for awarding punishment of termination without observing the principles of natural justice. 26. Apart from this, in the objection filed on behalf of the University to the Misc. Case No.637 of 2014 arising out of this Writ Appeal, it appears that the University has already paid the back wages to the appellant as per the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 27. When the appellant has already got the back wages pursuant to the judgment of the learned Single Judge, he cannot file appeal being a fence sitter challenging the back wages already received. There is nothing found from the side of the appellant that he has received the same with protest as there is no any objection filed. 28. So, we do not find any infirmity with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, we confirm the same and accordingly, the Writ Appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.