-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.2576 OF 2005 Kumari Ujawala Sopan Bhujbal Age: 41 years, having her address at & post: Kondave, Taluka & Dist. Satara. : Petitioner V/s. 1. The Working President, Bharatiya Bhatke Vimukta Vikas & Research Institute, Survey No.10B, Karanje, Tal. & Dist.: Satara. 2. The Head Master, Yashwantrao Chavan Primary Ashram Shala, Bhosari, Pune. 3. District Social Welfare Officer, Pune District, Pune. 4. Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Pune Division, Pune. : Respondents ... Mr.Dilip Bodke for the petitioner. Mr.U.P. Warunjikar for respondent nos.1 & 2. Mrs.S.S.Bhende, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for resp. nos.3 & 4. ... CORAM : S.B.MHASE & A.A.KUMBHAKONI,JJ. -: 2 :- DATE : JUNE 03, 2008. ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per S.B. Mhase,J.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, by consent of parties. Mr.Warunjikar for the respondent nos.1 & 2 and Mrs.Bhende, the learned Asstt. Government Pleader for the respondent nos.3 & 4, waive service. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner was an employee of the respondent nos.1 & 2. She was an Asstt. Teacher. By an order, her services were terminated by the management and, therefore, the petitioner approached the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Pune Division, Pune, by filing an appeal against the said order. The Divisional Social Welfare Officer by his order dated 24.11.2004 allowed the said appeal and directed that the petitioner shall be reinstated on the post of Asstt. Teacher with effect from 17.9.1999 and that the petitioner be immediately allowed to resume the duties. The Divisional Social Welfare Officer further directed that from the date of resumption of duties, the pay and allowances be paid. However, in respect of payment of back wages and other allowances, the Divisional Social Welfare Officer -: 3 :- directed that it will not be payable. Therefore, that specific part of the order which refuses back wages and allowances is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. We make it clear that the order of reinstatement and order directing the respondent-institution to make payment of salary and allowance from 17.9.1999 is not under challenge before this Court. More specifically, the order of reinstatement has not been challenged by the respondent nos.1 & 2 and, therefore, that part of the order has become conclusive as against the respondent nos.1 & 2. 4. So far as non-granting of any back wages is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that normally, the order of payment of back wages follows the order of reinstatement. No doubt the payment of back wages can be reduced or denied only after appropriate reasons are assigned in support of such reduction or refusal. He submitted that, however, after going through the impugned order, it will be seen that nowhere the point of back wages was considered in the body of the main order and only one sentence appears at the fag end of the operative part of the impugned order that back wages are not payable to the petitioner and, therefore, he submits that the impugned order suffers -: 4 :- from illegality and non-application of mind. 5. Mr.Warunjikar for the respondent nos.1 & 2 and Mr.Bhende, the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondent nos.3 & 4, concede that though back wages have been refused, the impugned order does not give any reasons as to why back wages are refused. However, both of them submitted that under these circumstances, the Writ Petition may be partly allowed to that extent and the matter may be remanded back to the Divisional Social Welfare Officer to consider the point of back wages and to decide as to whether back wages are payable or not and if payable, how much, by giving reasons. 6. After considering the submissions of both sides, it has become crystal clear that the order refusing back wages has been passed without giving any reasons. It is well-settled position in service law that normally whenever reinstatement is to be granted, back wages become payable to the employee. The only question whether she is entitled to full back wages or partial back wages or no back wages is required to be considered by the authority, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. Since the Divisional Social Welfare Officer has miserably failed to give any reasons in support of his impugned order refusing payment of back -: 5 :- wages, we find that the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents to remit the matter back to the Divisional Social Welfare Officer for reconsideration of this limited aspect is proper and justified, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, we pass the following order:- O R D E R (i) The impugned order dated 24.11.2004 passed by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer only to the extent of refusing back wages and allowances is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Pune Division, Pune, to consider only the point of payment of back wages. He shall pass an order in this regard with reasons in respect of payment of back wages, in the light of the observations made in the earlier part of this judgement. (ii) We make it clear that we have not set aside the order of reinstatement and, therefore, the Divisional Social Welfare Officer need not consider again the validity of the order of reinstatement, etc. He shall bear in mind that there is no power -: 6 :- of review with him and there are no directions from this Court in this respect to him. He shall only consider the point of back wages and assign reasons in respect of payment of back wages. We further make it clear that we have not by this judgement indicated or directed him to order payment of back wages. He shall take a decision as to whether the petitioner is entitled to back wages and if so, to what extent and if not, why not. (iii) The parties are directed to appear before the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Pune Division, Pune, on 16.6.2008. (iv) All the above exercise shall be completed by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer within a period of eight weeks from today. (v) The rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. 7. The parties to act on authenticated copy of this judgement. (A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (S.B. MHASE, J.)