Kishori Hari vs Union of India and Others

Pramath Patnaik, J.—In the aforesaid writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing of order dated 30.05.2014 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 26 of 2013 (R) wherein the learned Tribunal has been pleased to dismiss the said O.A. and for quashing of order dated 31.05.2012 passed by appellate authority (Rly) and also for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay full back pay with consequential benefits.

The material facts, bereft of unnecessary details in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was a ''Safaiwala'' under Sr. Section Engineer (C and W) (I/C), Eastern Railway, Dhanbad, but, due to sudden mental troubles and serious medical illness he was taken to Ranchi Mansik Arogyashala, Kanke and he remained under treatment of a renowned psychiatrist from 15.10.1984 to 02.09.2001 and the factum of illness of the petitioner was communicated to the concerned authorities. However, the petitioner was finally declared fit on 02.09.2001. On being medically declared fit by the doctor, the petitioner submitted application before the Sr. Section Engineer (C and W) (I/C) dated 28.09.2001 for allowing him to resume duty. However, the Sr. Section Engineer (C and W) (I/C), Dhanbad did not pay any heed to the application of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application before the D.R.M. Office on 06.07.2004 to allow him to perform duty as ''Safaiwala''. It has been averred that thereafter the petitioner submitted an application before the disciplinary authority and Divisional Mechanical Engineer (C and W) on 19.03.2007 praying therein to allow him to join duty and to revoke the unwarranted charge-sheet issued vide Memorandum dated 17.01.2007. The petitioner also filed representation dated 04.01.2008 before the disciplinary authority and Divisional Mechanical Engineer (C and W) against the findings of the enquiry officer dated 19.12.2007. Basing on the findings of the enquiry officer the petitioner was removed from services. Against order of removal, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. Additional D.R.M. on 06.03.2008, which was partially allowed vide order dated 31.05.2012 (Annexure 6) and the petitioner was reinstated into services. In the order dated 31.05.2012 at Annexure 6, the appellate authority has been pleased to pass the following order:

"The charges of unauthorized absence is proven. But C.O has appealed that he was ill and under treatment. He has been interviewed today and has agreed to perform in future. Therefore, one more chance is being given. He is to be reinstated in initial grade and pay and absent to be treated as LWP." 3. Being aggrieved with the order dated 31.05.2012, the petitioner preferred Original Application being O.A. No. 26 of 2013(R) before learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.05.2014. Being aggrieved with the order of dismissal in aforesaid Original Application, the petitioner has preferred the present writ application with the aforesaid prayer for redressal of his grievances.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

On perusal of the impugned order dated 30.05.2014 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna vide Annexure 7, it appears that the learned Tribunal has exhaustively dealt with the case of the petitioner and there is absolutely no justifiable ground to differ with the findings of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal for following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements:

"(i). The appellate authority has taken a very lenient and compassionate view so far as reinstatement of the petitioner is concerned since the petitioner, admittedly and undisputedly, was absent from 15.10.1984 to 02.09.2001 on the ground of mental illness. Despite 17 years of unauthorized absence the appellate authority has shown fair degree of leniency and compassion for reinstatement of the petitioner since the petitioner has not discharged his duties from 02.09.2001 to 31.05.2012, the petitioner is not entitled for back wages on the principles of ''no work, no pay''. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal warrants no interference as no illegality or impropriety has been committed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna.

(ii). The order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 26 of 2013 (R) does not suffer from any illegality or untenability so as to warrant interference by this Court as due to unauthorized absence disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner, which was justifiable and the appellate authority by taking a compassionate view has reinstated the petitioner in services and the period of absence has been treated as ''Leave Without Pay'', which is quite justified and the claim of the petitioner for grant of back wages is not legally sustainable on the principles of ''no work, no pay''. Therefore, the impugned order dated 31.05.2012 at Annexure 6 and order dated 30.05.2014 passed in O.A. No. 26 of 2013 (R) by Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna does not call for any interference by this Court.

(iii). It is no more res integra that the principles of ''no work, no pay'' is applicable on the ground that the employee has not worked during the interregnum period till his reinstatement into services. The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Paramjit Singh Vs. Director, Public Instructions and Others, has dealt with the issue of ''no work, no pay''.

In the instant case, a peculiar distinguishable feature is that the petitioner on account of his mental illness remained absent for 17 years but the appellate authority by bestowing sympathy and compassion has passed the order for his reinstatement. Since the leniency has been shown by the appellate authority for his reinstatement so as to enable him to eke out a living, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for grant of back wages is preposterous and legally misconceived. Applying the aforesaid principle, as propounded by Hon''ble Apex Court, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order."

As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 30.05.2014 passed in O.A. No. 26 of 2013 (R) at Annexure 7 and order dated 31.05.2012 passed by appellate authority at Annexure 6. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed being devoid of any merit.