MULIN SHARMA versus STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 753, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Facts
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 753 
~ 
MULIN SHARMA 
v. 
STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 6119 of2016) 
JULY 12, 2016 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Service law: Back wages - Appellants case was that he was 
forced to submit resignation letter under compulsion and criminal 
intimidation by respondent no. 6 and his men - Courts below 
accepted the allegation and ordered reinstatement, however denied 
back wages - Appellant challenged non-grant of back wages -
Held: The facts and circumstances of the case clearly shoi<•ed that 
the resignation tendered by the appellant was not voluntary -
However, courts below categorically held and rightly so that the 
appellant was not entitled to back wages - Appellant had not 
produced any material to prove that he remained unemployed during 
that period - Since he did not attend the school during that period, 
he cannot be granted back wages for that period - He, however. 
should be reinstated in service and be given all other consequential 
benefits - Though he is not entitled to back wages, he is granted 
Rs. 25,000/-, in addition to the amount granted by the High Court, 
for wrongful denial of service. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The fact remains that the appellant did not perform 
his duties in the School at the behest of respondents. Similarly, 
the fact of he being unemployed throughout the period was not 
proved; no material evidence was placed on record for the same. 
In that case, single Judge of the High
Court was having only the 
remedy of reinstatement of the appellant in the service and he 
ordered so after carefully examining that the resignation was not 
voluntary. In the facts and circumstances of the case, back wages 
should not have been awarded to the appellant. In several cases, 
this Court has held that payment of back wages is a discretionary 
power which has to be exercised by a court keeping in view the 
facts in their entirety and neither straitjacket fo~mula can be 
753 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
754 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A evolved nor a rule of universal application can be laid down in 
such cases. Thus, reinstatement does not necessarily result in 
payment of back wages which would be independent of 
reinstatement. While dealing with the prayer of back wages, 
factual scenario and the principles of justice, equity and good 
B 
conscience have to be kept in view by an appropriate court. The 
concurrent finding of the courts below that the appellant is not 
entilled to back wages in the absence of any material on record 
that he remained unemployed during the entire period from 
23.05.1998 to 16.08.1999 is correct. The appellant did not attend 
the school during that period and back wages cannot be granted 
C 
to him for that period. He, however, should be reinstated in 
service and be given all other consequential benefits. Though 
he is not entitled to back wages, he is certainly entitled to an 
amount of Rs. 25,000/-, in addition to the amount granted by the 
High Court, for wrongful denial of service. [Paras 7, 9, 11, 12] 
D 
[757-E, H, 758-A, D-G] 
E 
C.N. Malla vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. 
(2009) 9 SCC 597: 2009 (13) SCR 479 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
2009 (13) SCR 479 
relied on 
Para 10 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6119 of 
2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2012 of the High Court 
F 
ofGuwahati in W. A. No. 14 of2010. 
Ms. Aparna Jha, Adv. for the Appellant. 
Dr. Kai lash Chand, J. Chutiya,
Avijit Roy, Ms. Kankana Arandhara 
(For M/s. Corporate Law Group) Advs. for the Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.K. AGRAWAL, J. I. Leave granted. 
H 
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 
25.07.2012 passed by the Gauhati High Court at Gauhati in Writ Appeal 
Nos. 14 of 20 I 0 and 226 of 2009 whereby the Division Bench of the
MULIN SHARMA v. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS 
755 
[R.K. AGRAWAL, J.] 
High Court partly allowed Writ Appeal No. 14 of 2010 filed by the 
A 
appellant herein against the judgment and order dated 19.01.2007 passed 
by the learned single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 2357 
of 2004 and dismissed the Writ Appeal No. 226 of 2009 filed by the 
respondents herein. 
3. Brief facts: 
B 
(a)Mulin Sharma-the appellant herein, an M.A. in Sanskrit, was 
employed as an Assistant Teacher (Classical/Sanskrit) in the Rangsina 
High School, Karbi, Ang long District, Assam in the year 1995. The school 
was provincialized in the year 1996 as also the services of the appellant 
herein against the allotted post of Assistant Teacher. 
c 
(b)Owingto certain differences with the Headmistress (Respondent 
No. 5 herein) of the School, who incidentally is the wife of Respondent 
No. 6 herein, who is also the Head Master of the M.E. Section of the 
said school, the appellant herein was forced to sign the resignation letter 
under compulsion, force and criminal intimidation by Respondent No. 6 
D 
and his men on 22.05.1998 and he was not paid his salary from 
23.05.1998. 
( c) Making a grievance against such forcible obtaining of resignation 
letter and signature therein, the appellant herein submitted a series of 
representations to various authorities to take action in the matter. When 
E 
the appellant herein did not get any response in respect of his grievance 
relating to forceful
obtaining ofletterofresignation, he filed a Writ Petition 
being No. 4047of1999 before the High Court. Learned single Judge of 
the High Court, by order dated 16.08.1999, directed as an interim measure 
that ifthe appellant is working in the school in question as on today, he 
shall be allowed to continue. 
F 
(d)The writ petition was disposed of by the High Court by order 
dated 14.07.2003 with a direction that the appellant herein and Respondent 
Nos. 4 and 5 herein shall appear before the learned Deputy Commissioner, 
Karbi Anglong, Diphu. The Deputy Commissioner was further directed 
to determine the facts and circumstances under which the resignation 
G 
letter came to be issued and signed by giving opportunity to both the 
sides. 
(e)The Deputy Commissioner, Karbi Anglong, Diphu, after 
conducting an enquiry and also after affording reasonable opportunity to 
both the sides, by order dated 16. I 0.2003, held that the resignation 
H
756 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
tendered by the appellant herein was voluntary and that in terms of the 
order dated 14.07.2003, the competent authority will have to accept the 
resignation of the appellant herein afresh. 
(f) After the Order so passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the 
Deputy Secretary, Education Department (Higher), Karbi Anglong 
B 
Autonomous Council (KAAC) passed an order dated 12.01.2004 
accepting the resignation of the appellant herein with effect from 
16.10.2003, i.e., the date of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, 
with the stipulation that the appellant herein would not be entitled to any 
financial benefits w.e.f. 22.05.1998 since according to the said authority, 
c 
he did not attend his duties from 22.05.1998. 
(g)Another consequential order dated 27.01.2004 was issued by 
the office of the Inspector of Schools, Karbi Anglong District Circle, 
Diphu stating that the resignation letter dated 22 .05 .1998 tendered by 
Shri Mui in Sharma, Classical Teacher at Rangsina High School is hereby 
accepted without any financial benefit with effect from 22.05 .1998 since 
D 
the incumbent concerned did not attend his duties. 
E 
F 
(h)Being aggrieved by the order dated 16. I 0.2003 passed by the 
Deputy Commissioner, the appellant herein preferred a Writ Petition 
being No. 2357 of2004 before the High Court. Learned single Judge of 
the High Court, by order dated 19.01.2007, partly allowed the petition by 
holding that the
resignation was not voluntary without passing any 
direction on the back wages. 
(i) Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2007 to the extent of 
back wages forthe period 23.05.1998 to 16.08.1999, the appellant herein 
preferred Writ Appeal being No. I 4.of20 I 0 before the High Court. The 
respondents herein also preferred Writ Appeal No. 226 of 2009 before 
the High Court against the aforesaid order. 
Q) The Division Bench of the High Court, by common judgment 
and order dated 25.07.2012 denied back wages to the appellant herein 
while granting a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for wrongful denial of his employment 
G 
during the abovesaid period in question. Writ Appeal No. 226 of2009 
was, however, dismissed by the Division Bench. 
H 
(k)Aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2012, the appellant herein 
has preferred this petition by way of special leave before this Court. 
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
MULIN SHARMA v. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS 
[R.K. AGRAWAL, J.] 
5. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, 1t 1s 
undisputed that the resignation tendered by the appellant herein on 
22.05.1998 was not voluntary and the courts below have categorically 
held that the appellant herein is not entitled to back wages in the absence 
of any material on record to show that he remained unemployed during 
the said period. Now, the question that arises for consideration is whether 
the courts below erred in not granting back wages to the appellant herein 
or whether the appellant has made out a case for grant of back wages 
for the period 23.05.1998 to 16.08.1999. 
6. Learned single Judge of the High Court while holding that the 
resignation was not voluntary, reinstated the appellant herein in service 
but denied him back wages. Learned counsel for the appellant contended 
before this Court that the respondents did not allow the appellant herein 
to perform his duties in the school. In fact, the very same thing was 
raised before the learned single Judge that the respondents did not allow 
the entry of the appellant herein into the School. The appellant herein 
signed the resignation letter under compulsion, criminal intimidation and 
force applied by the respondents on to him at their residence and forcefully 
they deprived him from entering into the school. 
7. The fact remains that the appellant herein did not perform his 
duties in the School at the behest
ofrespondents. Similarly, the fact of 
he being unemployed throughout the period was not proved; no material 
evidence was placed on record for the Same. In that case, learned 
single Judge of the High Court was having only the remedy of 
reinstatement of the appellant herein in the service and he ordered so 
after carefully examining that the resignation was not voluntary. 
8. The High Court, on the other hand, dealt with the question of 
back wages left open by learned.single Judge as well as the appeal filed 
by the respondents herein. The High Comt, on a correct appreciation of 
evidence on record, dismissed the appeal filed by the respondents herein 
holding that the resignation was not voluntary. Though the High Court 
did not grant back wages to the appellant herein, a sum of Rs. 25,000/-
was granted for wrongful denial of his employment. 
9, We are fully satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the 
case, back wages should not have been awarded to the appellant herein. 
In several cases, this Court has held that payment of back wages is a 
discretionary power which has to be exercised by a court keeping in 
view the facts in their entirety and neither straitjacket formula can be 
757 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
758 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 2 S.C.R. 
evolved nor a rule of universal application can be laid down in such 
cases. Thus, reinstatement does not necessarily result in payment of 
back wages which would be independent ofreinstatement. While dealing 
with the prayer of back wages, factual scenario and the principles of 
justice, equity and good conscience have to be kept in view by an 
appropriate court. 
I 0. In C.N. Mal ht vs. State of Jammu mu/ Kusltmir & Ors. 
(2009) 9 SCC 597, this Court has held as under:-
" IL The legal position is fairly settled by a catcna of decisions 
that direction to pay back wages in its entirety is not automatic 
consequent upon declaration of dismissal order bad in law. The 
concept of discretion is inbuilt in such exercise. The coL111 is 
required to exercise discretion reasonably and judiciously keeping 
in view the facts and circumstances of the case. Each case, of 
course. would depend on its own facts.'' 
I I. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered 
opinion that the concurrent finding of the courts below that the appellant 
herein is not entitled to back wages in the absence of any material on 
record that he remained unemployed during the entire period from 
23 .05 .1998 to 16.08.1999 is correct. Even learned counsel for the 
appellant herein has admitted before this Court that he was not allowed 
to perform his duties afterobtaining his signature on 22.05. I 998. 
I 2. Jn the present
facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant 
has not produced any material on record to prove that he being 
unemployed during that period and has not made out a case for grant of 
back wages for the aforesaid period. The appellant herein did not attend 
the school during that period and back wages cannot be granted to him 
for that period. He, however, should be reinstated in service and be 
given all other consequential benefits. Though he is not entitled to back 
wages, he is certainly entitled to an amount of Rs. 25.000/-, in addition to 
the amount granted by the High Court, for wrongful denial of service. 
13. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of with the above 
terms. 
Dcvika Gujral 
Appeal disposed of.