Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs V.S. Trivedi on 19 March, 2013
Author: Rajendra Menon
Bench: Rajendra Menon
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT
AT JABALPUR
W.A. No.775/2010
M.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
VS.
V. S. TRIVEDI
W.A. NO.931/2010
V. S. TRIVEDI
VS.
M.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Present: Hon'ble Shri S. A. Bobde, CJ &
Hon'ble Shri Rajendra Menon, J.
In W.A. No.775/2010
Shri P. C. Chandak, learned counsel for the appellant.
Respondent in person.
In W.A. No.931/2010
Appellant in person.
Shri P.C. Chandak, learned counsel for respondent
Corporation.
_________________________________________________
As per : Hon'ble Shri Rajendra Menon, J.
JUDGMENT
( 1932013 ) 2 Both these appeals are filed challenging an order dated 31.8.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.5483/1998 and therefore, both the appeals are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience documents and material available in the record of W.A. No.775/2010 is being referred to in this order.
2. Respondent Shri V. S. Trivedi was working in the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation. Contending that certain persons junior to him have been promoted from the post of Law Superintendent to the post of Depot Manager (Enquiry), a petition bearing M.P. No.3015/1985 was filed by respondent Shri V. S. Trivedi. This petition was disposed of on 26.4.90 directing the Corporation to consider the case of petitioner. This petition was disposed of on 26.4.90 directing the Corporation to consider the case of petitioner Shri V. S. Trivedi and grant him promotion if found entitled to. The case was considered and vide order dated 27.7.1991, he was promoted on the post of Depot Manager (Enquiry) w.e.f. 24.5.1985 notionally. The promotion was made effective from 27.7.1991 and the period from 24.5.1985 to 27.7.1991 was treated on the principle of "No work no wages". Wages 3 for this period on the promoted post were denied to the respondent Shri V. S. Trivedi on the ground that he has not discharged duties of the higher post. While the matter was so pending it seems that the respondent Shri V. S. Trivedi was involved in a criminal case for an offence under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and a criminal case bearing No.89/93 was registered against him. Due to his involvement in the criminal case he was suspended vide order dated 13.6.1994 and while on suspension the criminal case progressed and before the final order could be passed in the criminal case, the suspension was revoked and he was reinstated on 11.1.1995. However, by a judgment passed in the criminal case on 26.11.1994 the appellant Shri V. S. Trivedi was acquitted of all the charges but as full salary and allowance for the period 13.6.1994 to 15.1.1995 was not paid a writ petition was filed by the appellant- V. S. Trivedi being W.P. No.5483/1998. In this writ petition two reliefs were claimed. The first relief claimed was that after his promotion on the post of Depot Manager (Enquiry) full salary on the promoted post should be paid for the period 24.5.1985 to 27.7.1991. It was further contended that as the petitioner 4 was denied promotion without any fault on his part, he cannot be denied the difference of salary on the promoted post. Accordingly, the first relief claimed in the writ petition was payment of salary on the promoted post for the said period along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The second relief claimed was that for the period appellant Shri V. S. Trivedi remained under suspension i.e. from 13.6.1994 to 15.1.1995, full salary should be paid after deducting the suspension allowance in view of his acquittal in a criminal case. Both these reliefs has been granted by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 31.8.2009 and therefore, Writ Appeal No.775/2010 is filed by the Corporation challenging the order. However, as interest on the amount claimed in the writ petition is denied to the appellant Shri V. S. Trivedi, Writ Appeal No.931/2010 has been filed by him claiming interest on the delayed payment.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant- Corporation in W.A. No.775/2010 argued that the respondent- Shri V. S. Trivedi was involved in a criminal case because of his own activities and as he is acquitted of the criminal charges only by granting him benefit of doubt, therefore, he was not 5 entitled to salary for the period 13.6.94 to 15.1.1995 when he was under suspension. It was argued by learned counsel that the Fundamental Rule 54 is not applicable to the employees of the Corporation as the employees of Corporation are governed by statutory regulation and not by Fundamental Rules. Accordingly, by contending that applicability of Fundamental Rule is not proper, challenge is made to grant of full wages for the period of suspension. That apart, placing reliance on the following judgments, it is argued that the respondent V. S. Trivedi was involved in the criminal case because of his own conduct, he was suspended because of his involvement in a criminal case and even after his acquittal he is not entitled to full salary and allowance, in view of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anoop Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. - 2002(3) MPLJ 218 and the various judgments on the question as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Jaipal Singh - 2003 AIR SCW Pg.6635 and Baldev Singh Vs. Union of India and others - 2005(8) SCC 747. That part, with regard to payment of salary on the promoted post for the period 6 24.5.85 to 27.7.1991, Shri Chandak, learned counsel for the appellant Corporation argued that respondent- V. S. Trivedi having not discharged the responsibility of the higher post, he was not entitled to the arrears of salary on the promoted post. Accordingly, prayer made is that the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge be quashed.
4. Respondent- Shri V. S. Trivedi refuted the aforesaid and submitted that under Fundamental Rule 54-B the employee is entitled to full salary for the period he remains under suspension after his acquittal and as the order passed by the learned Single Judge is in accordance to the requirement of statutory rules, he submits that no interference be made. He further submits that as payment of amount was delayed without any fault on the part of the appellant- Shri V. S. Trivedi, therefore, interest on the delayed payment should have been granted.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As far as promotion to the appellant Shri V. S. Trivedi on the post of Depot Manager (Enquiry) is concerned, it is clear that promotion was denied to him without any just cause or reason and learned Single Judge 7 has found that in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K. V. Jankiraman - AIR 1991 SC 2010 the employee is entitled to full salary for the period and the principle of "No work no wages" is not applicable. This principle is again considered by the Supreme Court and is reiterated in various other cases. [ See Brijmohan Dwivedi Vs. State of M.P. - 2005(2) MPJR 307; Laxman Singh Vs. State of M.P. - 2011(5) MPHT 221 and State of Kerala Vs. E. K. Bhaskaran Pillai - 2007(6) SCC
52. In all these cases the principle laid down is that normally on promotion an employee is entitled to all the back wages, if the promotion is delayed or denied without any just cause or reason and if circumstances show that there was no justification for denial of the promotion. In the case of E. K. Bhaskaran Pillai (supra), the Supreme Court has held that situation in each case has to be evaluated and a decision taken. In the case of K. V. Jankiraman (supra) it has been held that normal rule of "No work no wages" is not applicalbe in a case where the employee is prevented from working due to the fault of the authorities and even though he was willing to work, he was kept away from working for certain reason 8 attributable to the authorities concerned. In the present case, nothing is brought to the notice of this Court or the Writ Court to show that there is any justifiable reason which prevented grant of promotion to the employee concerned with effect from the date it was granted to his juniors. It is a case where the promotion is granted belatedly, there is no justification for the delay and when promotion is granted retrospectively w.e.f. 24.5.1985 arrears of salary is denied without giving any cogent reason or justification. The learned Single Judge in the facts and circumstances of the case has not committed any error in applying the law as laid down in the case of K. V. Jankiraman (supra) and directing for payment of arrears of salary retrospectively with effect from the date of promotion i.e. 24.5.1985, we see no reason to interfere into this part of the order.
6. As far as granting full wages for the period of suspension i.e. from 13.6.1994 to 15.1.1995 is concerned, the learned Single Judge has applied the provisions of Fundamental Rule 54-B for granting the said benefit. Fundamental Rule 54-B is applicable only to government servants and there is nothing available on record to say that 9 the respondent- Corporation which is creation of a statute, i.e. a statutory corporation has adopted the Fundamental Rule or that the said Rules are made applicable to the Corporation. That apart, in the case of Jaipal Singh (supra) it has been held by the Supreme Court that if an employee is involved in a criminal case and he is acquitted of the charges, he is normally not entitled to back wages because his involvement in the criminal case is on account of his own conduct and attitude and the employer cannot be saddled with liability of paying arrears of salary after acquittal. Similar is the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Baldeo Singh (supra) wherein the law laid down in the case of Jaipal Singh (supra) has been followed. It has been held in the case of Baldeo Singh (supra) that mere acquittal of a employee in a criminal case would not entitle him to claim arrears of salary. The principle of "No work no wages" can be applied. Even a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anoop Kumar Shrivastava (supra) has laid down the same principle. Taking note of the totality of circumstances and the fact that appellant Shri V. K. Trivedi is acquitted of the criminal charges not honorably, but on the grounds of 10 benefit of doubt, he is not entitled to anything other than subsistence allowance already granted to him and therefore, to that effect the learned Single Judge has committed an error in granting full wages for the period when the employee remained under suspension due to his involvement in a criminal case. Appellant Shri V. K. Trivedi himself is responsible for his involvement in a criminal case and if law laid down in the case of Jaipal Singh (supra) and Baldeo Singh (supra) are applied, we see no reason to grant him full wages for the period of suspension. To that effect, the order passed by the learned Single Judge needs to be interfered with.
7. As far as grant of interest on the delayed payment is concerned, taking note of totality of facts and circumstances and the fact that the respondent - Corporation has already wound up due to financial crisis and even salary and post retiral benefit of hundreds of employees has not been paid, it is not appropriate for us to saddle the Corporation with any further liability of paying the interest.
8. In view of the above, Writ Appeal No.931/2010 filed by the appellant V. S. Trivedi seeking interest on the 11 delayed payment is dismissed and Writ Appeal No. 775/2010 is allowed in part. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.5483/1998 so far as it directs for payment of full salary i.e. difference of salary on the promoted post from the period 24.5.1985 to 27.7.91 is concerned, the same is upheld. However, payment of full pay and allowances for the period of suspension from 13.6.94 to 15.1.95 is concerned, the direction given by the learned Single Judge is found to be untenable for the reasons as indicated herein above and to that extent Writ Appeal No.775/2010 stands allowed.
9. Both the appeals are disposed of with the aforesaid terms without any order so as to costs.
( S. A. BOBDE ) ( RAJENDRA MENON )
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Mrs.m i shra