Telangana High Court
V. Srinivas, Hyderabad 4 Others vs The Union Of India, Ministry Of External ... on 17 November, 2022
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
1 AKS,J & RRN, J
WP No.13015 of 2011
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
&
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.13015 of 2011
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for brevity "Tribunal") in O.A.No.766 of 2009 dt.26.07.2010.
2. Heard Sri P.B. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. It has been contended by the petitioners that they were initially appointed as casual labourers in the year 1992 and temporary status was granted to the petitioners on 04.05.1994, and after rendering considerable period of service, the services of the petitioners were discontinued from 07.01.1995. Again, the petitioners were re-engaged on 03.10.2001 and subsequently, the services of the petitioners were regularized vide orders dt. 08.08.2007 w.e.f. 01.08.2007.
3.1 It is the further contention of the petitioners that they have submitted a representation seeking arrears of pay for the period 2 AKS,J & RRN, J WP No.13015 of 2011 from 07.01.1995 to 03.10.2001 and fix their pay scale accordingly. But, the said request of the petitioners was rejected vide proceedings dt.08.07.2009. Aggrieved by the said rejection orders, the petitioners have approached the Tribunal, Hyderabad, by filing O.A.No.766 of 2009 and the Tribunal vide order dt.26.07.2010 was pleased to dismiss the O.A. without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by directing the respondents to pay arrears of pay for the period from 07.01.1995 to 03.10.2001.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent had contended that the petitioners discontinued their services from 07.01.1995 and they were re-engaged only on 03.10.2001 and therefore the question of payment of arrears of pay to the petitioners would not arise since the petitioners have not worked during the said period, and the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the O.A. on the ground that 'no work - no pay'. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the O.A. preferred by the petitioners as admittedly, the petitioners have not worked during the relevant point of time for which the petitioners are claiming wages.
3 AKS,J & RRN, J WP No.13015 of 2011 Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
7. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ______________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Dt. 17.11.2022 BDR/HK