Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik vs Union Of India on 13 June, 2016
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH,
JABALPUR
Original Application No.662 of 2010
Jabalpur, this Monday, the13th day of June, 2016
Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Judicial Member
Mr. G.P.Singhal, Administrative Member
Balwant Rai S/o Late Atma Ram, Aged about 60 Ex-Sr. Administrative Officer-cum-Registrar, R/o-A-21, Professor Coloney Suhagi, Adhartal, Jabalpur (M.P) Pin Code-482004.
- Applicant
(By Advocate Shri S.K. Nandy)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Director General, Indian Council of Agriculture Research, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
3. Under Secretary (Vig.), Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
4. Director, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly (Uttar Pradesh)-243122.
5. The Director, Directorate of Weed Control Research, (former NRCWS), Maharajpur, Adhartal, Jabalpur-482004.
-Respondents
(By Advocate Shri S.K. Mishra)
(Date of reserving the order: 10.05.2016)
ORDER
By S.K. Kaushik, JM.-
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay all the consequential benefits of promotion to the post of Administrative Officer and Senior Administrative Officer w.e.f. 31.8.1996 and 27.7.2005 respectively with applicable interest thereon within the period as specified by this Court.
2. The facts which lead to the filing of this O.A. are that the applicant was initially appointed as Junior Clerk on 6.5.1971 and was promoted as UDC, Assistant, Superintendent, Assistant Administrative Officer, Administrative Officer and Senior Administrative Officer from time to time. He was also given additional charge of Registrar of Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly U.P. He has earned rewards also for his outstanding work. The applicant was issued a charge sheet during his working as AAO on 22.12.1995 which was challenged by him in O.A.No. 449/1996 which was dismissed as pre-mature. The applicant filed a writ petition in the Honble High Court which directed him to file a review petition in said O.A. He filed Review Petition No. 2/2003 which was decided on 28.3.2003 quashing the proceedings with observations that it would not be a bar to issue a charge sheet according to law. The order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 1958 of 2003 before Honble High Court and the Writ Petition was dismissed on 15.3.2005 observing that charge sheet was issued by an incompetent authority and as such view of the Tribunal was proper. Director, ILRI Ranchi was appointed adhoc disciplinary authority vide order dated 22.11.2005. A fresh charge-sheet dated 2.6.2006 was issued to the applicant on the same articles of charge. However, when the sealed cover was not opened, the applicant filed O.A.No. 963/2005 in this Tribunal which was decided on 1.12.2006 holding that the recommendations of the DPC held before 2.6.2006, if kept in sealed cover, are required to be opened and acted upon as per guidelines and instructions and direction was issued to open the same. This order too was challenged in W.P. No. 2696/2007 in High Court which was dismissed on 7.1.2008 holding that direction issued by Tribunal are infallible. The respondents passed orders dated 16.4.2008 and 18.8.2008 giving him promotion as AO w.e.f 31.8.1996 and as Sr. AOI w.e.f. 27.7.2005 i.e. from due date but the actual benefit has been denied to him which is alleged to be illegal, hence the O.A.
3. The respondents have resisted the claim of the applicant by filing a written statement. They submit that the O.A. is barred by the law of limitation. He has accepted the notional promotion without any objection and as such he is estopped from challenging the impugned orders. They submit that applicant was charged with irregularities in making 3 class IV appointments and purchase of land at a very nominal rates in return of favoritisms in appointment of Sh. A.K. Sharma as Farm mazdoor in an irregular manner. The applicant retired on 30.6.2009. They submit that court did not find any fault with action of respondents in placing case of the applicant in sealed cover. It is only due to technical reason that charge sheet was quashed and set aside. The proceedings are still continuing against him under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The orders of promotion were issued on 2008 and O.A. was filed in August, 2010 and as such it is barred by time.
4. The applicant has filed a rejoinder reiterating the submissions made in the Original Application. Both the sides have also submitted written arguments which have been perused.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant has basically relied upon decision of the Honble Supreme Court of India in Delhi Jal Board Vs. Mahinder Singh, SLP ) No. 11726 of 2000 decided on 1.9.2000 and Ramesh Kumar Vs. Union of India etc. C.A. No. 811 of 2007 decided on 31.7.2015 in which the consequential benefits of pay and allowance of retrospective promotion were allowed. The Court had held that in the absence of statutory provision, normal rule is no work no pay but in appropriate cases, a court of law may take into account all the facts in their entirety and pass and appropriate order in consonance with law. Thus, in the facts of those cases the benefit was allowed.
6. In the instant case it is not in dispute that the issue has remained under litigation. The applicant was successful to certain extent that the earlier charge sheet was quashed and set aside having not been issued by the competent authority and liberty was given to issue a fresh charge sheet and during all this process, the case of the applicant was kept in sealed cover. He was promoted in 2008 and has retired in 2009. The proceedings are still pending against the applicant under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
It is settled law that if an employee does not work on a post, he cant claim the wages for that on the principle of no pay for no work. There is an exception that if an employee is able to prove that he was ready to discharge his duties on the promoted post but he was denied to do by the respondents arbitrarily only then he certainly becomes entitled for the wages for that period. But when the applicant did not work for lawful reasons, then he cannot claim for the wages for that period on the principle of no pay for no work.
7. The aforesaid view finds support from the judgment passed by the Honble Supreme Court in a number of cases such as :-
(i) Virender Paul Sharma Vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors., 1992 (2) SLR 104,
(ii) Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Kumar Sharma, 1993(2) supp. SCC 366,
(iii) State of Haryana Vs. S.K. Khosla, 2007(15) SCC 777 and
(iv) State of Haryana Vs. O.P. Gupta, 1996 (7) SCC 533.
8. In case of Shukhdeo Pandey Vs. U.O.I. & Ors., 2007(7) SCC 455, the lordship in para 17 held that:
if the appellant has not worked, he will not be paid salary for the period for which he has not worked. It is well-settled principle in service jurisprudence that a person must be paid if he has worked and should not be paid if he has not. In other words, the doctrine of 'no work, no pay' is based on justice, equity and good conscience and in absence of valid reasons to the contrary, it should be applied.
9. In view of the authoritative law discussed above and considering the facts of the present case, the instant Original Application is found to be devoid of any merit and is dismissed, as the question of payment of monetary benefit to the applicant does not arise as, admittedly, the applicant had not worked during relevant period which was for lawful reasons and benefit on notional basis already stands extended to him by the authorities.
10. No costs.
(G.P.SINGHAL) (S.K. KAUSHIK) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
kc
6 OA No.662/2010
Page 6 of 6