CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11325 OF 2011
Shobha Ram Raturi ..Appellant
versus
Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and others ..Respondents
It is not a matter of dispute, that the appellant was
retired from service on 31.12.2002, even though he would have, in
the ordinary course, attained his date of retirement on
superannuation, only on 31.12.2005. The appellant assailed the
order of his retirement dated 31.12.2002 by filing writ petition
no. 751 of 2003. The same was allowed by a learned Single Judge of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on 14.09.2010. The operative
part of the order is extracted hereunder:
“Accordingly the present writ petition is allowed;
order dated 31.12.2002 (Annexure P-4) is quashed.
The petitioner would be treated to be in continuous
service with all consequential benefits. However it is clarified that since the petitioner has not
worked on the post maxim of “no work, no pay” shall
apply and the consequential benefits shall only be
determined towards terminal benefits. However
there will be no order as to costs.”
The denial of back wages to the appellant by the High
Court vide its order dated 14.09.2010 was assailed by the appellant
by filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 489 of 2011. The High Court
rejected the claim of the appellant, while dismissing the Letters
Patent Appeal on 26.5.2011. The orders dated 14.09.2010 and
26.5.2011 passed by the High Court limited to the issue of payment
of back wages, are subject matter of challenge before this Court.
Having given our thoughtful consideration to the
controversy, we are satisfied, that after the impugned order of
retirement dated 31.12.2002 was set aside, the appellant was
entitled to all consequential benefits. The fault lies with the
respondents in not having utilised the services of the appellant
for the period from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005. Had the appellant been
allowed to continue in service, he would have readily discharged
his duties. Having restrained him from rendering his services with
effect from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005, the respondent cannot be
allowed to press the self serving plea of denying him wages for the
period in question, on the plea of the principle of “no work no
pay”.
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are satisfied,
that the impugned order passed by the High Court, to the limited
extend of denying wages to the appellant, for the period from
1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005 deserves to be set aside. The same is
accordingly hereby set aside. JUDGMENT
The appellant shall be paid wages for the above period
within three months from today. His retiral benefits, if
necessary, shall be re-calculated on the basis thereof, and shall
be released to him within a further period of three months.
The instant appeal is allowed in the above terms.
Civil Appeal No(s). 11325/2011
SHOBHA RAM RATURI Appellant(s)
VERSUS
HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.& ORS Respondent(s)
Date : 09/12/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
For Appellant(s) Ms. V.S. Lakshmi, Adv.
for Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(Renuka Sadana) (Parveen Kr. Chawla) Court Master AR-cum-PS
[signed order is placed on the file] JUDGMENT