- (1.) Leave granted. This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated October 9, 2007 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, in Writ Appeal No. 173/2006. By the impugned order, the High Court, while allowing the appeal, preferred by the appellant, in part, has directed that he will be entitled to 25% of the back wages as against 50% of back wages awarded by the learned single Judge. Since the controversy in the appeal is confined to the question whether the appellate Bench was justified in reducing the amount of back wages in an appeal preferred by the appellant for further enhancement of the back wages, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts in detail. It would suffice to note that while quashing the order of compulsory retirement passed against the appellant, an Upper Division Clerk in the Police Department, the learned single Judge had directed his reinstatement with payment of 50% of back wages.
(2.) Being aggrieved with the direction for payment of back wages @ 50%, the appellant preferred intra-Court appeal. The respondent State did not challenge the said order. As noticed earlier, the appeal was partly allowed. The penultimate paragraph reads as under: "The principle with regard to back wages, as is manifest, has gone a sea-change. The earlier view was that with the quashment of the order of termination consequent grant of full back wages were a logical corollary. Presently, as the law has been enunciated, it would depend upon many a factor. A pragmatic view has to be taken. The petitioner stood dismissed in the year 1989. Regard being had to the facts and the circumstances in totality, the law in the field, the financial crunch suffered by the State and keeping in view the concept of a pragmatic approach, we are of the considered opinion that grant of 25% back wages would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed in part. We direct that the appellant would be entitled to 25% of the back wages. The same shall be paid to him within a period of three months hence. There shall be no order as to costs."
(3.) Thus, the appellate bench held that the appellant shall be entitled to 25% of back wages. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before us.;