Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 423 (JHR)

Anil Kumar Singh v. Union of India

2010-04-07

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
Order Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay him his entire salary for the period 7.2.1994 till 27.12.2002 during which period he was kept out of service pursuant to an earlier order of termination of his services. 3. As per the admitted facts of the case, the petitioner being a constable working in the C.I.S.F. Unit was terminated from service on certain charges. The petitioner challenged the order of his termination by filing a writ application before this Court. The writ application of the petitioner vide C.W.J.C. No. 8069 of 1994 was allowed by this Court holding that the impugned order of the petitioner's termination from service was illegal. While disposing of, the writ application, this Court had directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service. 4. It 'appears that in compliance with the directions contained in the order of this Court, as passed in the earlier writ application, the respondents had though reinstated the petitioner in service, but such reinstatement was made on initial scale of his pay. No back wages for the entire period during which he was out of service, was paid to him. 5. In the counter affidavit, an explanation for refusal to pay back wages has been offered by the respondents by taking a plea that since the order of the High Court, as passed in the earlier writ application, does not specify that the petitioner should be paid his back wages and further, since the principle of 'no work no pay' would apply to the petitioner, therefore he is not entitled to back wages. As regards the fixing of the pay scale of the petitioner at the initial scale and not the scale to which he was entitled on the date of passing the order of his termination from service, the counter affidavit of the respondents is totally silent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs by reference to paragraph 12 of the writ application that the petitioner has specifically stated that the period during which the petitioner was kept out of service, he was not gainfully employed and this averment has not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs by reference to paragraph 12 of the writ application that the petitioner has specifically stated that the period during which the petitioner was kept out of service, he was not gainfully employed and this averment has not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. 7. The principle of 'no work no pay' would certainly not apply in cases where the employee though willing to offer his services he is not allowed to work without his fault. It is well settled that in cases where the services of the employee is terminated by an order which is found to be thoroughly illegal, the employee cannot be subjected to any detriment which would follow on account 'of termination of his services. In this context one may advert to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & others vs. K.V. Jankiraman & Others, (1991) 4 SCC 109 [: 1992(1) PLJR (SC) 27]. From the perusal of the judgment passed in the• earlier writ application and the observations contained therein, while setting aside the impugned order of termination of the petitioner's service, this Court has observed that the order appears to have been passed vindictively and mala fidely by the concerned authorities of the respondents. It is apparent therefore that this Court had declared that the termination of the petitioner's services was thoroughly illegal and arbitrary and as such, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefits of wages for the period during which he was not allowed to join duty. To reiterate, the principle of 'no work no pay' would not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. For the same reason, the order of reinstatement would imply that the petitioner, upon his being reinstated, should be placed in the same position on which he was working on the date when the order of his termination from service was passed and he would certainly, under such conditions, be entitled to all the monetary benefits which he would have earned, had he not been illegally removed from service. 8. In the light of the above discussions and the facts and circumstances of the case, I find merit in this application. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. 8. In the light of the above discussions and the facts and circumstances of the case, I find merit in this application. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. The concerned authorities of the respondents shall pay the entire back wages to the petitioner for the period during which he was kept out of service and shall also pay him the salary which was paid to him on the date when his services were terminated, in the appropriate scale alongwith periodical increments which he would otherwise have earned during such period. 9. The directions contained in this order shall have to be complied with by the concerned authorities of the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondents.