Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1500 (GUJ)

Piyush Ramanlal Shah v. Gujarat Vidhyapith

2024-07-03

A.S.SUPEHIA, MAUNA M.BHATT

body2024
JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA) 1. A short issue is involved in the present Letters Patent Appeal relating to the grant of back wages. 2. Mr. Aditya Gupta, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has reduced the back wages to the extent of 25% from 100% which was granted by the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 30.03.2009 in Appeal No.1 of 2008. Mr. Gupta, learned advocate has submitted that in fact, the learned Single Judge has reduced the grant of back wages only by recording the facts in paragraph Nos.80 and 81 inter alia stating that since the appellant was discharging his honorary service with other institutions and he was also being paid regular salary pending the writ petition, without taking any work from him, he would be entitled to back wages to the extent of 25%. Mr. Gupta, learned advocate has invited the attention of this Court to the observations recorded by the Tribunal in the judgment and order dated 30.03.2009, more particularly, paragraph No.389 and has submitted that though an opportunity was offered to the respondent – Gujarat Vidhyapith relating to the grant of back wages, however, no submissions were made. Mr. Gupta, learned advocate has further submitted that since the appellant has been victimized right from his inception that is from his date of his appointment by the respondent – Gujarat Vidhyapith and they have also continuously embroiled him in various litigations, the amount of back wages, as directed by the Tribunal to the extent of 100%, is required to be paid to him. 3. Mr. Gupta, learned advocate has further submitted that from 31.03.2009 onwards, the appellant is being paid regular salary and it is not the case of the respondent that he was unwilling to work during the pendency of the writ petition, however, the respondent did not assign any work to him and he was paid salary in view of the interim order dated 02.03.2010. Thus, it is urged that the observations recorded by the learned Single Judge with regard to grant of back wages and denying him the back wages to the extent of 75% is required to be quashed and set aside. Thus, it is urged that the observations recorded by the learned Single Judge with regard to grant of back wages and denying him the back wages to the extent of 75% is required to be quashed and set aside. It is further stated by learned advocate Mr.Gupta that Letters Patent Appeal No. 834 of 2015 filed by the respondent – Gujarat Vidhyapith has been rejected by the order dated 26.10.2015 by the Coordinate Bench. It is stated by learned advocate Mr. Gupta that the amount of back wages to the tune of Rs.18,00,000/- was deposited before the Registry of this Court, however, he was allowed to withdraw 25% of the same i.e. Rs.4,50,000/- and the respondent – Gujarat Vidhyapit was allowed to withdraw an amount of Rs.13,50,000/- and it is urged that the said amount may be paid to him. 4. Per contra, Mr.Udayan Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the respondent – Gujarat Vidhyapith (original Petitioner) submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge granting the back wages to the extent of 25% is required to be maintained. He submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, pursuant to the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge, the appellant was paid idle salary and since he has enjoyed the same, the learned Single Judge has precisely denied the back wages to the extent of 75%. Thus, it is urged that the present impugned judgment may not be interfered with. 5. The facts which are established from the pleading is that the appellant, who was serving as a Registrar of the respondent – Gujarat Vidhyapith, was terminated from service on 08.07.2006 which ultimately culminated into the proceedings before the Tribunal in Appeal No.1 of 2008. The Tribunal, after hearing the respective parties, by a comprehensive judgment and order dated 30.03.2009, set aside the action of the respondent – Gujarat Vidhyapith. The issue with regard to grant of back wages cropped up before the Tribunal and the same is read in paragraph No.389. The same is incorporated as under: “During course of dictation of the judgment, appellant has filed Affidavit Exh.55 (Page 1877 of record), disclosing that whether he has served and earned after his dismissal on 8.7.2006. copy of this affidavit appears to have been served on Ld. Ad.Mr.S.B.Shah for Ld. Ad.Mr.H.J.Nanavaty for respondent Vidhyapith, on 25/3/2009. Today is 30/3/2009. The same is incorporated as under: “During course of dictation of the judgment, appellant has filed Affidavit Exh.55 (Page 1877 of record), disclosing that whether he has served and earned after his dismissal on 8.7.2006. copy of this affidavit appears to have been served on Ld. Ad.Mr.S.B.Shah for Ld. Ad.Mr.H.J.Nanavaty for respondent Vidhyapith, on 25/3/2009. Today is 30/3/2009. Neither any counter is filed nor any submissions are made, though I welcomed Ld. Ad. Mr.S.B.Shah to submit anything, if Respondent Vidhyapith wants, at this stage of dictation. Ld.Ad.Mr. S.B.Shah submitted that Respondent Vidhyapith does not want to submit anything qua the same. Reading the Affidavit it appears that: (1) After dismissal on 8/7/06, appellant is not paid any amount. (2) He has not undertaken any service, business or profession for remuneration or on honourarium basis for the period 09/07/2006 to 31/01/2007. (3) For the period of 01/02/2007 to 15/06/2008, he served “Lokniketan, Ratanpur, Tal. Palanpur and received Rs.66,000/- (Rs.Sixty Six Thousand only) by way of honorarium, and (4) Since 16/06/2008 onwards, he has not undertaken any service, business or profession with remuneration or on honorarium basis.” 6. After recording the aforestated facts, the Tribunal has granted full back wages to the appellant. The said judgment and order passed by the Tribunal was a subject matter of challenge in the captioned writ petition. By the CAV Judgment dated 23.06.2014, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition, however, has altered the grant of back wages from 100% to 25%. The relevant observations made in the judgment are recorded in paragraph Nos.80, 81 and 82, which reads as under: “80. It is stated by learned advocate Mr.Chauhan that as per the interim order passed by this Court, the respondent has been paid regular salary pending the petition without taking any work from him, the total of which has gone beyond Rs.50 Lacs. The Court is informed by the respondent that he has been discharging honorary services with other institution. The Court is also informed that towards arrears of salary and back wages the university has deposited around Rs.22 Lacs with this Court. From such amount, the respondent was permitted to withdraw amount towards arrears of salary. Ld. Advocate Mr.Chauhan states that now Rs.18 Lacs and odd has been lying with registry of this Court towards back wages. 81. The Court is also informed that towards arrears of salary and back wages the university has deposited around Rs.22 Lacs with this Court. From such amount, the respondent was permitted to withdraw amount towards arrears of salary. Ld. Advocate Mr.Chauhan states that now Rs.18 Lacs and odd has been lying with registry of this Court towards back wages. 81. This Court is of the view that considering the nature of the establishment of the university and the respondent having been paid regular salary pending the petition without work and the respondent since have been discharging honorary duties with other institution, the interest of justice will be subserved if the reinstatement of the respondent is ordered with 25% of back wages. 82. For the reasons stated above, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is confirmed and maintained insofar as quashing of order of dismissal passed against the respondent by the petitioner university and grant of reinstatement to the respondent. However, the order of the Tribunal for payment of the back wages beyond 25% shall stand quashed and set aside. The respondent shall be entitled to 25% back wages with reinstatement. Except this modification as regards back wages, the judgment and order of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed.” 7. The learned Single Judge was impressed of the facts that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent (appellant herein) since was paid regular salary and no work was taken, the grant of back wages was required to be reduced from 100% to 25%. We may, at this stage refer to the interim order dated 02.03.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge while admitting the writ petition. By the said interim order, the respondent – Gujarat Vidhyapith was directed to pay regular salary to the appellant on or before 10th of every month and the back wages was directed to be deposited before the nationalised Bank i.e. State Bank of India, Gujarat High Court Branch. 8. It is pertinent to note that it was always open for the respondent – Gujarat Vidhyapith to take work from the appellant and it was not required that he should have been paid idle salary, since no observations in this regard were made by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment. 9. 8. It is pertinent to note that it was always open for the respondent – Gujarat Vidhyapith to take work from the appellant and it was not required that he should have been paid idle salary, since no observations in this regard were made by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment. 9. Before the Tribunal, when the issue with regard to back wages cropped up, as noted herein above, a specific query was raised by the Tribunal and the learned advocate appearing for the respondent – Gujarat Vidhyapith was asked to comment upon that for the intervening period whether the appellant had served or not, since the appellant has specifically filed an affidavit at Exh.55, disclosing that after dismissal on 08.07.2006, the appellant was not paid any amount, and he has not undertaken any service, business or profession for remuneration or on honorarium basis for the period 09.07.2006 to 31.01.2007, and for the period of 01.02.2007 to 15.06.2008, he served “Lokniketan, Ratanpur, Tal. Palanpur and received Rs.66,000/- (Rs.Sixty Six Thousand only) by way of honorarium. 10. The facts narrated in such affidavit were not disputed and in fact it was specifically contended by the respondent – Gujarat Vidhaypith that they do not want to submit anything. Thus, the facts recorded in the affidavit stood un-controverted and accordingly, the Tribunal, while setting aside the impugned order of termination, granted 100% (full) back wages. It is also pertinent to note that the dismissal of the appellant was held to be illegal and unjustified. 11. Today also, the facts as narrated in the affidavit remained un-controverted. The issue now pertains to the grant of back wages from 08.06.2006 to 31.03.2009. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- was deposited before the Bank and out of that amount 25% i.e. Rs.4,50,000/- was allowed to be withdrawn by the appellant, whereas Rs.13,50,000/- was allowed to be withdrawn by the respondent – Gujarat Vidhyapith. 12. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- was deposited before the Bank and out of that amount 25% i.e. Rs.4,50,000/- was allowed to be withdrawn by the appellant, whereas Rs.13,50,000/- was allowed to be withdrawn by the respondent – Gujarat Vidhyapith. 12. In our considered opinion, the reason assigned by the learned Single Judge to grant the back wages to the extent of 25% on the premise that he was being paid regular salary, does not appear to be appropriate, since it was not the issue that the respondent was paid the salary after his dismissal or termination, but it was only pursuant to the interim order, such salary was paid and it was always open for the respondent to take work from the appellant during his service. The subsequent grant of salary, pursuant to the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, cannot override the facts of the appellant, which was stated in the affidavit before the Tribunal between the period from dismissal till the order passed by the Tribunal. 13. There is another aspect, which cannot be ignored, is that the Vidhyapith also assailed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is impugned in the present appeal. By the order dated 26.10.2015, the Coordinate Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal No.834 of 2015. The tribunal and this Court have recorded that the appellant was subjected to disciplinary proceedings, after he pointed out various financial and administrative irregularities going on in the University during the tenure of Vice Chancellor, Shri Arunbhai Dave. From the tenor of the judgment of the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge, it is noticed by us that the appellant was victimized by the respondent – Gujarat Vidhyapith and he was illegally dismissed. Thus, the findings, regarding the unlawful persecution of the appellant at the hands of the University have become final. 14. In our considered opinion, looking to the overall facts, and the manner in which the appellant has been treated by the Vidhyapith, in the interest of justice, it would be apposite that the respondent – Gujarat Vidhyapith is directed to pay 75% of back wages. 14. In our considered opinion, looking to the overall facts, and the manner in which the appellant has been treated by the Vidhyapith, in the interest of justice, it would be apposite that the respondent – Gujarat Vidhyapith is directed to pay 75% of back wages. Thus, the order of the learned Single Judge, confining the grant of back wages to the tune of 25% is altered to the extent that the appellant shall be entitled to back wages to the extent of 75% that of Rs.18,00,000/-. The appellant is already paid an amount of Rs.4,50,000/-. Hence, he would be entitled to further amount of Rs.9,00,000/-. The same shall be paid to him within a period of two months. If the aforesaid amount is not paid within stipulated time of two months, the same shall carry interest @ 9%. 15. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.