Supreme CourtDivision Bench(2019) 12 SC CK 0119

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. vs Prayag Narain Dubey

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 2 December 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
Uday Umesh Lalit, J · Vineet Saran, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Application No. 2295, 2296 Of 2019 In Civil Appeal No(s). 6481, 6482 Of 2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 332 words

By order dated 20.08.2019, four directions were passed. The second of those directions was as under:-

"(b) Insofar as the claim regarding the back wages after 28.02.2018 is concerned, the respondent shall be entitled to only 25% back wages."

This application has been filed to submit that there is a typographical error and instead of "28.02.2018" the correct expression ought to be "28.02.2010".

There is no objection to the modification as sought.

We, therefore, allow this application and modify the aforesaid direction (b) which shall read:-

"(b) Insofar as the claim regarding the back wages after 28.02.2010 is concerned, the respondent shall be entitled to only 25% back wages."

The official record shall stand modified accordingly and certified copies of the order dated 20.08.2010 shall thereafter be issued subject to the aforesaid modification.

I.A.No.183395/2019

This application has been preferred by the original-respondent with following prayers:

"A. Reissue the retirement order of the respondent by considering his date of retirement as 28.02.2018;

B. Pay 25% of the back wages, which would have been payable to the respondent had he been allowed to be in service till 28.02.2018;

C. Pay the leave encashment allowance to the respondent by considering his date of retirement as 28.02.2018;

D.  Pay the gratuity amount to the respondent after considering his date of retirement as 28.02.2018;"

The matter is pressed only with regard to prayers "B" and "C".

Ms. Garima Prashad, learned advocate for the State has no objection if the back-wages are calculated as and when they became due at the rates applicable and out of the aggregate, 25% of the back-wages are made over to the respondent. The statement is recorded.

In view thereof, nothing further need be done as regards prayer (B) is concerned. As regards prayer (C ), direction (B) is very clear and whatever is allowable to the respondent in terms of the Rules, has to be made over to him towards leave encashment allowance.

With the aforesaid observations, the applications are disposed of.