JUDGMENT : The appellant was given employment by the Central Coalfield Limited (henceforth referred to as the “Coal Company”) under the land loser's scheme in the year, 1993. Such employment was compensatory in nature, certain land of the appellant having been acquired for mining purpose by the coal company. Her service was however, subsequently terminated on 12th July, 1999 on the ground that she did not have any right title and interest over the land in question. The subject-land is situated in the village Burmu (Khalari) in the district of Ranchi. The reason cited as the cause for termination of her service is denotification of the said land from the acquisition process. It is the State's stand that the subject-land stood recorded as “gairmajerua”, as a consequence of which the acquisition proceeding stood withdrawn in respect thereof. Subsequently there has been several litigations in which the appellant writ-petitioner sought reinstatement, but we do not consider it necessary to refer to those litigations individually barring the ones which are relevant for adjudication of this appeal. 2. The appellant along with four other plaintiffs had instituted a title suit registered as Title Suit No. 227 of 2000 in the Court of Sub Judge-I, Ranchi. In the suit, in which both the State of Bihar and the Managing Director-cum-Chairman CCL were parties, the appellant's claim was for declaration of her along with that of the co-plaintiffs' right title and interest over the suit property. It was also claimed that the plaintiff nos. 4 and 5 in the suit continued to be in service of the coal company. The appellant before us was plaintiff no. 4 in the said suit whereas plaintiff no. 5 was one Mrs. Merry Rose Ekka. The suit was decided in favour of the plaintiffs therein and it was decreed and ordered that the plaintiffs were entitled to the reliefs as claimed for and the plaintiff nos. 4 and 5 were directed to be appointed by the coal company within a period of three months from the date of judgment. The Suit Court found that the plaintiffs had been able to prove and establish their valid right title and interest over the suit land. It was also held by the Suit Court that the plaintiffs were entitled to receive compensation and also entitled to their service. The Suit Court found that the plaintiffs had been able to prove and establish their valid right title and interest over the suit land. It was also held by the Suit Court that the plaintiffs were entitled to receive compensation and also entitled to their service. Subsequently, the appellant has been reinstated in service after the decree was passed on 17th November, 2003. 3. In the present proceeding, the dispute is over payment of back wages to the appellant. The appellant had approached the learned First Court with prayer for back wages for the entire period commencing from the date of termination of her service to the date of her reinstatement. The learned First Court held that she could not be treated as working between 12th July, 1999 and 12th August, 2011, the latter being the date of her reinstatement. That finding, however, was given on the question of promotion. The learned First Court directed the payment of back wages from 2nd September, 2009 till 12th August, 2011. The significance of 2nd September, 2009 is that an earlier writ petition seeking reinstatement was disposed of on that date directing the respondents to consider the claim of petitioner and take an appropriate decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order. In that writ petition registered as W.P.(S) No. 2612 of 2005, the writ petitioner had prayed for reinstatement in service. 4. In this appeal, the appellant primarily seeks back wages from the date of her termination from service. Such prayer is resisted by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Coal company relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1756 of 2010 (Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur Vs Shri Phool Chand (Dead) Through L.Rs.) decided on 20th September, 2018. In this judgment, considering the various authorities on the question of payment of back wages, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held; “11. In our considered opinion, the Courts below completely failed to see that the back wages could not be awarded by the Court as of right to the workman consequent upon setting aside of his dismissal/termination order. In other words, a workman has no right to claim back wages from his employer as of right only because the Court has set aside his dismissal order in his favour and directed his reinstatement in service. 12. In other words, a workman has no right to claim back wages from his employer as of right only because the Court has set aside his dismissal order in his favour and directed his reinstatement in service. 12. It is necessary for the workman in such cases to plead and prove with the aid of evidence that after his dismissal from the service, he was not gainfully employed anywhere and had no earning to maintain himself or/and his family. The employer is also entitled to prove it otherwise against the employee, namely, that the employee was gainfully employed during the relevant period and hence not entitled to claim any back wages. Initial burden is, however, on the employee. 13. In some cases, the Court may declined to award the back wages in its entirety whereas in some cases, it may award partial depending upon the facts of each case by exercising its judicial discretion in the light of the facts and evidence. The questions, how the back wages is required to be decided, what are the factors to be taken into consideration awarding back wages, on whom the initial burden lies etc. were elaborately discussed in several cases by this Court therein the law on these questions has been settled. Indeed, it is no longer res integra. These cases are, M.P. State Electricity Board vs. Jarina Bee (Smt.), (2003) 6 SCC 141 , G.M. Haryana Roadways vs. Rudhan Singh, (2005) 5 SCC 591 , U.P. State Brassware Corporation vs. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479 , J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. K.P. Agrawal & Anr. (2007) 2 SCC 433 , Metropolitan Transport Corporation vs. V. Venkatesan, (2009) 9 SCC 601 , Jagbir Singh vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 327 and Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Ors., (2013) 10 SCC 324 . 14. The Court is, therefore, required to keep in consideration several factors, which are set out in the aforementioned cases, and then to record a finding as to whether it is a fit case for award of the back wages and, if so, to what extent.” 5. Main argument of Mr. Das is that since the appellant had not worked during the period in question, she could not claim any sum as back wages. On the other hand, submission of Mr. Main argument of Mr. Das is that since the appellant had not worked during the period in question, she could not claim any sum as back wages. On the other hand, submission of Mr. Rajiv Ranjan learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assisted by Piyus Chitresh is that the appellant, being all along willing to render her service, was deprived of the opportunity to render such service and hence that factor could not be held against her. He has relied on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED) and Others, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 . In this judgment it has been held; “22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer-employee relationship, the latter's source of income gets dried up. Not only the employee concerned, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi-judicial body or court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. The denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the employee concerned and rewarding the employers by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments.” 6. The factual context of this case is that during part of the period the appellant's service stood terminated, the land in question stood denotified and hence not under acquisition. According to Mr. Das, for that period, the appellant could not claim to remain in service on the basis of land loser's scheme as there was no land lost to her during that period. But subsequent to the decree of the Suit Court, which we have referred to earlier, the situation stood reversed and the acquisition was re-established. The entitlement of the appellant for back wages for that period was also not granted. After the Suit Court decreed the suit, her back-wages, if quantified, would be Rs.7,60,402.98/-. It also remains a fact that during this period also an appeal by the State was pending against the said decree and the appeal was finally dismissed on 1st January, 2006. The said dismissal of the appeal was on account of default and no material has been produced before us to show that the appeal was subsequently restored. No such case has been made out by the Coal company either. In the case of the appellant, it was not a case of regular employment. She was given employment under a special scheme for losing her land. We find from the decree of the Suit Court that she belongs to Oraon Tribe, (converted to Christianity). Her service was terminated as there was doubt on her title or ownership of the land, for loss of which she had gained the employment. The Suit Court subsequently confirmed her right, title and interest over the land in question. The Suit Court specifically gave a finding that it will be deemed that she was in service under C.C.L. and she would be entitled to all benefits relating to her service. The Suit Court subsequently confirmed her right, title and interest over the land in question. The Suit Court specifically gave a finding that it will be deemed that she was in service under C.C.L. and she would be entitled to all benefits relating to her service. Having regard to the special features of this case, we do not think that it would be proper for us to deny entitlement of the appellant for back wages solely because of her inability to plead before the authorities that she was not employed elsewhere during the period in question. The BCCL has also not made any effort to demonstrate that the appellant was gainfully employed during the period her service remained terminated. In such circumstances, while we do not accept the appellant's plea for full back-wages, in our opinion, the coal company ought to pay an additional a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- as lump sum payment in respect of the period for which the appellant was not granted back wages. Such payment should be made within a period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order. This shall be in addition to the amount directed to be paid by the learned First court. 7. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.