Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
R K Mishra vs G M West Central Railway Ors on 13 December, 2012
Bench: Ajay Rastogi, Bela M. Trivedi
In The High Court of Judicature For Rajasthan
At Jaipur
********
O R D E R
DB Civil Writ Petition No. 19846/2012
RK Mishra Vs. The General Manager, West Central Railway, Jabalpur & Others
Date of Order :: 13/12/2012
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
Mr. CB Sharma, for petitioner.
Instant petition has been filed assailing order of Central Administrative Tribunal dt. 8.12.2012 rejecting original application & upholding decision of the authority of treating the intervening period regularized from 21.1.2003 to 1.3.2004 but pay & other benefits were denied to him on the principles of no work no pay.
It appears from the record that the petitioner was working as adhoc Legal Assistant and worked for some time, however, the authority repatriated him to join on substantive post of TTE vide order dt. 20.1.2003. However, the litigation was initiated at the behest of the petitioner regarding his repatriation before Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench and the matter traveled upto High Court of Bombay and while dismissing the application vide order dt. 27.1.2004 liberty was granted to permit him to join on substantive post and on his representation dt. 9.2.2004 he was directed to report at Kota and stood retired from service from the said post in the month of November, 2008, however, after his retirement order was passed by the authority treating the intervening period 21.1.2003 to 1.3.2004 as dies non on the principles of no work no pay rather the department took a lenient view and considered to regularize the period for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
Learned Tribunal after examining the material which came on record was of the view that the the petitioner has not come up with reasonable explanation as to why he could not report for duty despite order passed by the authority repatriating him to join on his substantive post on 20.1.2003 and finally rejected the OA vide order impugned.
The submissions made by the counsel for petitioner are nothing but reiteration of what was urged before the learned Tribunal and in our opinion decision of the authority cannot be said to be unjust treating the intervening period as dies non on the principle of no work no pay, rather the Department has taken a lenient view and still the intervening period is being treated for the pensionary benefits and that being so we do not find any error in the order of the Ld. Tribunal which may require interference by this Court.
Consequently, the writ petition fails and stands dismissed.
[BELA M. TRIVEDI],J. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Dsr/
"All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed"
Datar Singh P.S