BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY VARANASI Vs. J N TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. R. K. Trivedi, J. This special ap peal is from judgment and order dated 27th July, 1995 passed by learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5518 of 1985 by which appellants have been directed to reinstate petitioner-respon dent herein on the post of senior clerk with all consequential benefits. Appellants have also been directed to pay arrears of salary to petitioner.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this special appeal are that the petitioner respondent J. N. Tripathi was employed in Banaras Hindu University (hereinafter referred to as 'university') as Junior Clerk on 14th June, 1964. On 1st March, 1973, he was promoted as senior clerk. On 1st March 1975, he was confirmed as senior clerk. On 20th July, 1976, petitioner was placed under suspension having been involved in a criminal case under Section 408/477-A, I. P. C. He was tried for the aforesaid of fence in Criminal Case No. 125'' of 1979 and was convicted and sentenced to one year's R. I. by trial Court. However, respondent challenged the conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal No. 483 of 1982 which was allowed on 11th July, 1983 and the respondent was acquitted of the charges with the finding that the prosecu tion has failed to establish any case against him. On appeal being allowed, petitioner filed an application "on nth July, 1983 before the University authorities and prayed for revocation of the order of suspension and for remstaifcinent but when no action was taken, petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9667 of 1984 for directing the University to decide the representation of petitioner-respondent. However, by order dated 17th December, 1984 petitioner-respondent was ter minated froir. service and the order was maintained by the Executive Council by order dated 20/22nd June, 1985, petitioner-respondent then filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5518 of 1985 chal lenging order dated 17th December, 1984 and resolution dated 20/22nd June, 1985. THE writ petition has been allowed by learned Single Judge by order dated 27th July 1995. THE operative part of the order reads as under: - "the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. THE impugned orders dated 20/22-6-84 and 17- 12-1984 are quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of senior clerk with all consequential benefits. THEy are further directed to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner. " Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellants have filed the present special appeal.

(3.) WE have carefully considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the cases cited before us. The learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition has recorded a finding for awarding the back wages to the following effect: - "petitioner never refused to discharge his duties. On the other hand, respondents themsel ves did not permit him to work. In Hindustan Tin Works v. Its Employees, AIR 1979 SC 75, the apex Court of the country was pleased to hold that "if the workmen were always ready to work, but they were kept away therefore, on account of invlaid act of the employer, there is no jus tification for not awarding them full back wages, which were very legitimately due to them. " Therefore, the impugned orders, in view of the discussions made above, were invalid and in operative in law. Petitioner will be entitled to receive arrears of salary. "