The Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed that the direction to award back wages is a discretionary power to be exercised judiciously, depending on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. In a recent judgment in Sri Man Mohan Kumar Shahu v. Union of India & Ors. (MAT 954 of 2024), the Division Bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen dismissed the appeal of a retired Assistant Sub-Inspector of the Railway Protection Force (RPF), who sought back wages following his wrongful compulsory retirement.
Case Background
The appellant, Sri Man Mohan Kumar Shahu, was placed under suspension in 2009 after being arrested in connection with a criminal case under Sections 304B, 497, and 498A of the IPC. Despite being acquitted of all charges, Shahu faced departmental disciplinary proceedings, resulting in his compulsory retirement in 2012. The statutory appeal against this punishment was rejected in 2013.
Challenging the disciplinary actions, Shahu filed a writ petition, which was decided in his favor in April 2024. The Single Bench quashed the findings of the disciplinary and appellate authorities, declaring the punishment unlawful. However, the court declined to award back wages, prompting Shahu to appeal the decision.
Key Legal Issues
1. Validity of Disciplinary Actions: The court reiterated that the disciplinary authority’s actions were void, as they were based on the ultra vires provisions of Rule 143.2 of the RPF Rules, 1987. This rule had already been struck down by the Calcutta High Court in Suresh Chowdhury v. Union of India (2008).
2. Entitlement to Back Wages: The core issue on appeal was whether Shahu, who had been exonerated, was entitled to back wages for the period of suspension and wrongful retirement.
Court’s Decision
The Division Bench upheld the Single Bench’s refusal to award back wages, emphasizing that such payments are not automatic in cases of wrongful termination. The court noted several critical factors influencing its decision:
– The appellant failed to plead or demonstrate that he was not gainfully employed during the period of suspension and litigation, as required under settled law.
– Despite the quashing of the disciplinary proceedings, Shahu’s inaction in challenging his suspension or the charge sheet at earlier stages weakened his case.
– The discretionary nature of awarding back wages requires courts to consider the broader circumstances, including the conduct of the employee and the progression of litigation.
The court referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (2013), which clarified that back wages could be awarded if an employee demonstrates victimization or wrongful actions by the employer. However, in the absence of specific pleadings or evidence of unemployment, the court declined to grant such relief.
Observations of the Court
“Direction towards payment of back wages is a discretionary power which has to be exercised by a court keeping in mind the facts in their entirety. Neither a straitjacket formula nor a rule of universal application can be laid down in such cases,” observed the Division Bench, affirming that case-specific factors play a decisive role in such determinations.
The appellant was represented by Mr. Achin Majumdar and Ms. Ananya Neogi, while the respondents were represented by Mr. Anirban Mitra.
