Court grants back wages, dismisses appeal, directs college compliance with orders, authorizes back wages recovery.

The court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant college and granted back wages to the 1st respondent for the period from the judgment date in May 2010 until the respondent's deemed retirement in April 2014. The court held that the orders allowing displaced employees to rejoin were binding, not permissive, and within the Government's administrative powers. The college was directed to comply with the orders, and the Government was authorized to recover the back wages from the college.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether Exts. P-11, P-17, and P-21 orders are permissive in nature, granting privilege or liberty to the appellant to reappoint the 1st respondentRs.
2. Whether Exts. P-11 and P-14 and also the consequential orders in Exts. P-17 and P-21, are ultra vires of the powers of the Government authorities who issued themRs.
3. Whether a statutory authority or agency can ignore or refuse to honour the Government Orders on an assumed premise that they are voidRs.
4. Whether a Government Order of perceived voidness or voidability can be assailed collaterallyRs.
5. If Exts. P-11 and P-14 as well as Exts. P-17 and P-21, are held to be enforceable at the behest of the 1st respondent, whether the first respondent is entitled to pay and other service benefits for the interregnum period from the date of his ceasing to be an employee of the University till the date of his actual reemployment in his parent college, the appellantRs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Permissive Nature of Orders
The court examined Ext. P-11, which allowed displaced employees to rejoin their parent departments if vacancies existed. It concluded that the orders were peremptory and binding, not merely permissive. The orders granted rights to the displaced employees, not privileges to the colleges.

Issue 2: Ultra Vires Nature of Orders
The appellant college argued that the orders were ultra vires as they conflicted with the M.G. University Act. The court analyzed Sections 59(1), 59(1A), 76, 77, 100, and 101 of the Act, concluding that the Government had the authority to issue such orders. The orders were within the administrative powers of the Government, and the creation of supernumerary posts was a valid exercise of power under Section 56(7) of the Act.

Issue 3: Ignoring Government Orders
The court held that a statutory authority or agency cannot ignore Government Orders on an assumed premise of voidness. The appellant college, being under the control of the Government, was bound to implement the orders unless they were legally challenged and set aside.

Issue 4: Collateral Challenge
The court discussed the concept of collateral challenge, emphasizing that an order presumed to be void must be challenged directly in appropriate legal proceedings. It cited various precedents, including State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh and State of Rajasthan v. D.R. Laxmi, to support the view that an order remains effective until it is legally invalidated. The court concluded that the appellant could not collaterally challenge the Government Orders without a formal legal challenge.

Issue 5: Entitlement to Pay and Benefits
The court addressed the issue of pay and allowances for the interregnum period. It noted that the Government, as the paymaster, had directed the reemployment of the 1st respondent, but the appellant college's non-compliance caused the delay. The court directed the Government to pay the accumulated back wages from the date of the judgment in the O.P. (18-5-2010) until the 1st respondent's deemed retirement in April 2014. The Government was given the liberty to recover the amount from the appellant college through appropriate means.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed W.A. No. 1645/2010 filed by the appellant college and allowed W.A. No. 1866/2010 filed by the 1st respondent to the extent of granting back wages for the specified period. No costs were awarded.

---