LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a teacher who was initially recommended for appointment but not actually appointed and later appointed after a long gap, is entitled to back wages and consequential benefits from the date of initial recommendation.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Ali Hussain Ansari and Another
[Judgment Date]: 15 January 2020
Date of the Judgment: 15 January 2020
Citation: 2020 INSC 27
Judges: S. Abdul Nazeer, J. and Sanjiv Khanna, J.
Can a person who was recommended for a teaching position, but not appointed for almost two decades, claim full back wages and benefits as if they were continuously employed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this complex issue, modifying the High Court’s order regarding consequential benefits for a teacher who faced a long delay in appointment. The court, while acknowledging the teacher’s right to some relief, also considered the principle of “no work, no pay”. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising of Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Sanjiv Khanna, with the opinion authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna.
Case Background
The first respondent, Ali Hussain Ansari, was recommended for appointment as an Assistant Teacher at Satya Prakash Vivekanand Inter College in Deoria, Uttar Pradesh, on an ad hoc basis. However, the college management did not issue an appointment letter. Instead, they advertised the position for direct recruitment on 08 July 1987. One Shesh Mani Shukla was selected and appointed, with a letter sent to the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria, for approval on 11 September 1987. The District Inspector of Schools declined approval on 10 December 1987, citing violations of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981. Financial approval for Shesh Mani Shukla’s appointment was also denied on 20 April 1988.
Shesh Mani Shukla challenged these orders in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court, through an interim order dated 27 January 1992, directed the appellants, including the District Inspector of Schools and the college management, to pay salary to Shesh Mani Shukla. Consequently, Shesh Mani Shukla worked and received salary until 23 April 2004, when the High Court dismissed his petition. His subsequent appeal was also dismissed by the High Court on 22 February 2006, and the Supreme Court on 31 July 2009.
Following this, Ali Hussain Ansari was finally appointed as Assistant Professor on 30 June 2006, after the District Inspector of Schools issued an order on 31 July 2006. He retired on 30 June 2009, upon reaching superannuation.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 08 July 1987 | Advertisement for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Teacher issued. |
| 11 September 1987 | Shesh Mani Shukla appointed, letter sent to District Inspector of Schools for approval. |
| 10 December 1987 | District Inspector of Schools declines approval for Shesh Mani Shukla’s appointment. |
| 20 April 1988 | District Inspector of Schools refuses financial approval for Shesh Mani Shukla’s appointment. |
| 27 January 1992 | High Court directs payment of salary to Shesh Mani Shukla. |
| 23 April 2004 | High Court dismisses Shesh Mani Shukla’s writ petition. |
| 22 February 2006 | High Court dismisses Shesh Mani Shukla’s appeal. |
| 30 June 2006 | Ali Hussain Ansari appointed as Assistant Professor. |
| 31 July 2006 | District Inspector of Schools issues order for Ali Hussain Ansari’s appointment. |
| 30 June 2009 | Ali Hussain Ansari retires from service. |
Course of Proceedings
Ali Hussain Ansari filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in 2008, seeking payment of arrears of salary from 08 June 1987 to 30 June 2006. The High Court directed the District Inspector of Schools to consider his representation. The District Inspector of Schools rejected the claim based on the principle of “no work, no pay” on 20 May 2009. Ansari then filed another writ petition, which was allowed on 04 January 2018, granting him consequential benefits, including pension, from 08 June 1987. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld this decision, affirming that Ansari was entitled to retirement benefits, seniority, and promotions, but not actual salary for the period he did not work.
Legal Framework
The judgment refers to the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, which was the basis for the District Inspector of School’s decision to reject Shesh Mani Shukla’s appointment. However, the specific provisions of this order are not detailed in the judgment. The principle of “no work, no pay” was also a key consideration in the case. This principle generally dictates that an employee is not entitled to salary for a period during which they did not perform any work. The court also considers the concept of consequential benefits, which are benefits that an employee would have received if they had been in service, such as seniority and pension.
Arguments
The appellants (State of Uttar Pradesh and its functionaries) argued against the High Court’s decision to grant consequential benefits from 08 June 1987, the date of the initial recommendation for Ali Hussain Ansari’s appointment. They contended that since Ansari did not work during the period from 08 June 1987 to 30 June 2006, he should not be entitled to full back wages or benefits for that period. They emphasized the principle of “no work, no pay.”
The respondent, Ali Hussain Ansari, argued that he was initially recommended for the post of Assistant Teacher in 1987 and was wrongly denied the appointment. He contended that the delay in his appointment was not his fault and that he should be compensated for the loss of service and benefits he would have received had he been appointed on time. He sought back wages, seniority, and pensionary benefits from the date of his initial recommendation.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ Submission: No Entitlement to Back Wages |
|
| Respondent’s Submission: Entitlement to Full Benefits |
|
Innovativeness of the argument: The respondent’s argument is innovative as it seeks to bridge the gap between the principle of “no work, no pay” and the injustice caused by the delay in appointment. The respondent is not seeking back wages for the period he did not work but is seeking consequential benefits based on the initial recommendation.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the core issue that the Court addressed was:
- Whether the High Court’s direction to grant consequential benefits, including pensionary benefits, with effect from 08 June 1987 (the date of initial recommendation) to the first respondent, was correct, considering that the respondent was not actually appointed until 30 June 2006, and did not work during the intervening period.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court’s direction to grant consequential benefits from 08 June 1987 was correct? | The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s order. While acknowledging the respondent’s right to some relief, the Court held that granting full consequential benefits from 08 June 1987 was not appropriate. The Court directed the payment of a lump sum compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 in addition to other benefits calculated from the actual date of appointment (30 June 2006). |
Authorities
The judgment does not explicitly cite any case laws or books. The primary legal consideration was the principle of “no work, no pay” and the concept of consequential benefits. The court also considered the factual matrix of the case, where the respondent was initially recommended for appointment but not appointed for a significant period due to circumstances beyond his control. The court also took into account the fact that another person, Shesh Mani Shukla, had worked and received salary for a significant period in the same post due to an interim order of the High Court.
| Authority | How it was Considered |
|---|---|
| Uttar Pradesh Secondary Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 | The District Inspector of Schools relied on this order to reject Shesh Mani Shukla’s appointment. |
| Principle of “no work, no pay” | The Court considered this principle as a reason to not grant full back wages for the period the respondent did not work. |
| Concept of consequential benefits | The Court acknowledged that the respondent was entitled to some consequential benefits, but not from the date of initial recommendation. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s order, finding that granting full consequential benefits from 08 June 1987 was not appropriate. The Court acknowledged the peculiar facts of the case, where the respondent was initially recommended for appointment but not appointed until 30 June 2006. The court also considered that another person had worked and received salary for a significant period in the same post due to an interim order of the High Court.
| Submission by Parties | Treatment by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ Submission: No Entitlement to Back Wages | Partially accepted. The Court agreed that the respondent was not entitled to full back wages for the period he did not work. |
| Respondent’s Submission: Entitlement to Full Benefits | Partially accepted. The Court acknowledged the respondent’s right to some relief but did not grant full consequential benefits from 08 June 1987. |
| Authority | How it was viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| Uttar Pradesh Secondary Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 | The Court acknowledged that the District Inspector of Schools relied on this order to reject Shesh Mani Shukla’s appointment, which led to the subsequent delay in the respondent’s appointment. |
| Principle of “no work, no pay” | The Court applied this principle to deny full back wages for the period the respondent did not work, but balanced it with the need to provide some relief for the delay in appointment. |
| Concept of consequential benefits | The Court recognized the respondent’s entitlement to consequential benefits but modified the High Court’s order to calculate them from the actual date of appointment (30 June 2006) instead of the date of initial recommendation (08 June 1987). |
The Court directed that the first respondent would be paid a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 (rupees four lakhs only) in addition to any other benefits payable to him in accordance with law, treating his date of appointment as 30 June 2006. The court also directed that the compensation be paid within six weeks from the date of the order, with a 10% interest per annum in case of delay.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by a balance of equities and the peculiar facts of the case. The Court recognized that the respondent was initially recommended for appointment but was not appointed for a significant period due to circumstances beyond his control. However, the Court also considered that the respondent did not work during that period and that another person had worked and received salary for the same post due to an interim order of the High Court. The Court’s decision to award a lump sum compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 was an attempt to balance these competing considerations.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Factual Considerations (Peculiar Facts) | 45% |
| Principle of “no work, no pay” | 30% |
| Balance of Equities | 25% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The court’s reasoning was a blend of factual considerations and legal principles. The court acknowledged the factual injustice done to the respondent, but also considered the legal principle of “no work, no pay”. The court’s reasoning is as follows:
The Court considered the principle of “no work, no pay” but also acknowledged the injustice caused to the respondent due to the delay in appointment. The court’s decision was an attempt to balance these competing considerations.
The court stated: “Having heard counsel for the parties, we feel, in view of peculiar facts and on balance of equities, the directions regarding the post-retirement benefit etc. as granted requires a modification.”
The court also observed: “From the fact recorded above, it is apparent that Shesh Mani Shukla upon selection and appointment had filed a Writ Petition in 1988 and worked as an Assistant Professor till 2004. This was in view of the interim directions issued by the High Court. The salary was also paid to Shesh Mani Shukla as the Assistant Professor.”
The court further stated: “Keeping in view the aforesaid peculiar factual position, we would modify the directions given by the Court on the payment of retirement benefits with a direction that the first respondent would be paid an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (rupees four lakhs only) as compensation.”
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s order regarding consequential benefits for a teacher who faced a long delay in appointment.
- The Court balanced the principle of “no work, no pay” with the need to provide some relief to the teacher for the delay in appointment.
- The Court awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 in addition to other benefits calculated from the actual date of appointment.
- This judgment highlights the importance of considering the specific facts of each case when applying legal principles.
- It also underscores the need for a balance of equities when dealing with issues of service law.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the appellant to pay a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 (rupees four lakhs only) to the first respondent within six weeks from the date of the order. In case of delay, the appellant would be liable to pay interest at 10% per annum from the date of the order.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that in cases where there is a delay in appointment due to circumstances beyond the control of the employee, the employee is not entitled to full back wages for the period they did not work, but they may be entitled to a lump sum compensation in addition to other benefits calculated from the actual date of appointment. This decision modifies the previous position of law where consequential benefits were often calculated from the date of initial recommendation, irrespective of whether the employee had actually worked during that period.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ali Hussain Ansari provides a nuanced approach to the issue of consequential benefits in cases of delayed appointments. The Court balanced the principle of “no work, no pay” with the need to provide some relief to the teacher who was wrongly denied appointment for a long period. By awarding a lump sum compensation, the Court sought to address the injustice faced by the teacher while also acknowledging the fact that he did not work during the period in question. This judgment serves as a reminder that each case must be decided based on its unique facts and circumstances, and that a balance of equities must be considered when applying legal principles.
Category
Parent Category: Service Law
Child Category: Retirement Benefits
Child Category: Consequential Benefits
Parent Category: Uttar Pradesh Secondary Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981
Child Category: Interpretation of Uttar Pradesh Secondary Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ali Hussain Ansari case?
A: The main issue was whether a teacher who was initially recommended for appointment but not actually appointed for almost two decades, is entitled to back wages and consequential benefits from the date of initial recommendation.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s order and held that the teacher was not entitled to full back wages and benefits from the date of initial recommendation. Instead, the Court awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 in addition to other benefits calculated from the actual date of appointment.
Q: What is the principle of “no work, no pay”?
A: The principle of “no work, no pay” means that an employee is not entitled to salary for a period during which they did not perform any work. This principle was a key consideration in the case.
Q: What are consequential benefits?
A: Consequential benefits are benefits that an employee would have received if they had been in service, such as seniority and pension. In this case, the court considered whether the teacher was entitled to consequential benefits from the date of initial recommendation or the actual date of appointment.
Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment highlights the importance of considering the specific facts of each case when applying legal principles. It also underscores the need for a balance of equities when dealing with issues of service law. It also clarifies that consequential benefits are not to be calculated from the date of initial recommendation but from the actual date of appointment.