Madhya Pradesh High Court
S.R.Rajak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 February, 2012
1
W.P.No.1036/2008
8/2/2012:
Shri R. K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S. K. Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents on advance notice.
Challenging the order Annexure P/12 dated 17.12.2007 by which a period from 18.6.90 to 23.1.93 is treated on the principle of "No Work No Wages" and is regularized by granting extra ordinary leave to the petitioner, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Petitioner is a retired employee and was working as Head Clerk in Government College, Khurai from where he has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2002. It is seen from the record that petitioner was posted in Government College, Khurai as Head Clerk. On 14.6.90 vide Annexure P/1 he was transferred from Government College, Khurai to Government College, Sausar. On the ground that petitioner is a elected Secretary of M.P. Class III Employees' Union, a registered association of employees and as per policies and circulars of the State Government dated 17.9.1986 petitioner cannot be transferred, the transfer is contrary to the transfer guide lines, petitioner did not join on the transferred post but kept on representing the matter and finally the representations of the petitioner were allowed and vide order dated 23.1.93 Annexure P/5 order of 2 transfer was canceled. In the meanwhile, as salary was not paid to the petitioner for the period 18.6.90 to 23.1.93 petitioner filed application before the State Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which was registered as O.A. No.3466/97. State Government appeared and filed reply before the Tribunal vide Annexure P/8 and pointed out that petitioner did not join on the transferred post, did not work and therefore, he is not entitled for salary. After abolition of Tribunal case was transferred to this Court and was registered as W.P. No.12029/2003 and this Court vide order dated 17.4.2006 directed the State Government to reconsider the matter and take a decision. Initially when action was not taken, contempt proceedings were initiated but subsequently when the matter has been decided vide Annexure P/12 dated 17.12.2007 in the manner as indicated herein above, petitioner has again filed this writ petition.
Shri R. K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as petitioner was representing in the matter and as his transfer was illegal, contrary to the policy of State Government, petitioner was right in representing, objected to his transfer and as the State Government has allowed his representation, petitioner would be entitled to salary for the entire period from 18.6.90 to 23.1.93. Accordingly, contending that salary for the said period has been denied to the petitioner, in a unjustified manner, this writ petition is filed after his retirement.
3Shri S. K. Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State argued that when the petitioner was transferred and when there was no interim order for stay of his transfer, merely because representation was pending, petitioner could not remain unauthorizedly absent and in the present case, no coersive action is taken against the petitioner and only salary is denied on the principle of "No work No wages" after the entire period from 18.6.90 to 23.1.93 is regularized by treating it to be extra ordinary leave. Accordingly he submits that there is no illegality in the matter and petition is liable to be dismissed.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court does not find any ground to interfere into the matter, when the petitioner was transferred and when the transfer order was issued by the competent authority, petitioner as a Government servant was duty bound to comply with the order of transfer or if he was aggrieved, he should have filed an application before a Court of competent jurisdiction and obtained stay of the transfer. If the transfer order was not stayed by any Court of competent jurisdiction or by the State Government pending finalization of the representation, it was the duty of petitioner to join on the transferred post, discharge duties and then agitate against the impugned action. Nothing was done, the petitioner did not join on the transferred post and felt satisfied by representing and sitting at home. Having done so, petitioner is not entitled 4 to salary for the period without discharging his duties. Respondents in all fairness to the petitioner by regularizing the period treating it to be an extra ordinary leave took no coersive action except for denying salary for the aforesaid period. Petitioner having not reported for duty and having not performed any work is not entitled to salary. Under such circumstances, finding no case made out for interfering into the matter on the grounds raised, this petition is dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge Mrs.m i shra