Karnataka High Court
R Shekar vs The Divisional Controller on 15 February, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT APPEAL NO.131 OF 2022 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
R. SHEKAR
S/O RAMDAS
AGE 54 YEARS
R/AT NO.297, E BLOCK
1ST CROSS, BDA LAYOUT
LINGARAJAPURA
NEAR ST JOSEPH CHURCH
BENGALURU - 560 084
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHEKAR L, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISONAL CONTROLLER
B.M.T.C.
NORTH-EAST DIVISION
CENTRAL OFFICE
K.H.ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
... RESPONDENT
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT
PETITION NO.21416/2021 DATED 7.12.2021 CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED WITH A DIRECTION TO
THE RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE THE APPELLANT WITH FULL
BACK WAGES AND OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS FROM
15.04.2021 TILL THE DATE OF REINSTATEMENT AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. This intra-Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 07.12.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.21416/2021 whereby, while allowing the writ petition, the Court has not granted back wages for the period the appellant/petitioner was out of job.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submits that no reasons have been assigned by the writ Court for denying the back wages from 15.04.2021 upto the date of which he reported for duty. The submission is that the Court, although has found the impugned order dated 15.04.2021 as bad in law and has quashed the same, but has not allowed back wages. It is contended that once the Court has found the order of compulsory retirement dated 15.04.2021 as not sustainable in law and has quashed the order, then the appellant/petitioner was entitled to get full salary from the date he was denied continuation of service.
4. We have considered the submissions and gone through the record.
-3-
5. The short question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant/petitioner is entitled to get full salary for the period he was denied working on the post of which he had been working prior to passing of the impugned order dated 15.04.2021.
6. In the case of UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH vs. BRIJMOHAN KAUR1, the Apex Court has held as under:
"The direction of the Tribunal which is affirmed by the High Court, in our view, is against the old canons of law directed by this Court. It is settled law that when an incumbent does not discharge any duty, the principle of "no work no pay" would be applicable. This consistent view has been taken by this Court keeping in view the public interest that any government servant who does not discharge his duty should not be allowed to draw pay and allowances at the cost of public exchequer."
7. The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS vs. ALI HUSSAIN ANSARI AND ANOTHER2 has held that the delinquent employee would not be entitled to get back wages on the principle of 'No Work, No Pay'. The relevant paragraph 5 is reproduced below:
1
(2007) 11 SCC 488 2 (2020) 3 SCC 99 -4- "On or about 1-5-2008, the first respondent had filed Writ Petition No. 22102 of 2008 before the High Court seeking payment of arrears of salary from 8-6-1987 till 30-6-2006. This writ petition was disposed of by order dated 1-5-2008 of the learned Single Judge with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria to consider and decide the representation made by the first respondent. The District Inspector of Schools, Deoria vide order dated 20-5-2009 rejected the representation for payment of arrears of salary on the principle of "no work no pay".
Aggrieved, the first respondent had preferred Writ Petition No.11131 of 2010 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 4-1-2018 directing that the first respondent would be entitled to consequential benefits including pension benefits with effect from 8-6-1987. We have already referred to the order in State of U.P. v. Ali Hussain passed by the Division Bench which has dismissed the appeal holding inter alia that the respondent would be entitled to retirement benefits treating him to be in service with effect from 8-6-1987 with seniority and benefit of promotion(s), if any, for the purpose of payment of retirement benefits. However, actual salary was not to be paid on the principle of "no work no pay"."
(emphasis supplied)
8. Even in case the order denying work to the delinquent is found to be bad and illegal, that does not entitle the delinquent to get full salary for the period he has not worked. In case, the delinquent has not worked then, on the principle 'No Work, No Pay', he cannot claim back wages.
-5-
9. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned. The writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE AHB