Sudhindra Kumar Mishra vs State of Rajasthan

The instant appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 09/12/2013.

The appellant initially joined service in the Department of Food and Civil Supplies on 29/08/1973 however, he was compulsorily retired along with 17 officers on being dead-wood in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 vide order dated 29/11/2000 (Ann. 1 to the writ petition). It appears that the officers of the department, who were compulsorily retired, submitted a joint representation to ventilate their grievance. The State Government in its wisdom took a decision to constitute a Grievance Committee vide order dated 03/12/2002 and called upon the applicant-officers/employees, who were interested to submit their representations so that it may be considered appropriately on certain terms and conditions and for which, an undertaking by way of affidavit was asked for from the incumbent concerned that if his/their grievances are ventilated by the Grievance Committee constituted by the State Government, he/they will not claim any salary or wages for the intervening period on the principle of ''no work no pay'' and, thereafter, the undertakings submitted by the individuals were placed before the Grievance Committee.

The Grievance Committee took into consideration the matter of individuals/employees and of the present appellant and arrived at a conclusion that he needs indulgence and accordingly, the order was passed for his reinstatement dated 08/07/2004 (Ann. 7 to the writ petition) and he joined service on the same day.

The appellant furnished an undertaking that he will not claim any salary or wages for the intervening period on the principle of ''no work no pay'' and obviously he was not paid any salary and wages for that period. He made a grievance before the learned Single Judge by filing writ petition that he had no other option other than furnishing Undertaking and to act upon on the conditions laid down by the State Government and such undertaking furnished by the appellant was under compulsion and in absence thereof, his application could not have been considered on merit by the Grievance Committee, which was constituted by the State Government for the purpose and apart from it, his grievance was that once he has been reinstated by the order of the competent authority dated 08/07/2004, atleast he is entitled for notional benefits so as not to cause him further financial loss.

The learned Single Judge after examining the material on record, had arrived at the conclusion as regards to the salary/wages for the intervening period prayed for that an undertaking had been furnished by the appellant and that was the very basis for which his application was placed before the Grievance Committee for consideration on merit and apart from it, the learned Single Judge has held that since the appellant did not work during the intervening period hence, a decision has rightly been taken not to pay him the salary/wages on the principles of ''no work no pay''.

The learned Single Judge relying on the principles of ''no work no pay'' also took note of the fact that the period during which the appellant did not work wages have been denied to him but the State Government cannot ignore the intervening period and directed for notional fixation and retiral benefits including consequential benefits flowing thereof.

Counsel for the appellant submits that once he was reinstated, he is entitled for the actual wages for the intervening period and he has right to claim the same and in support of his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D. Ed.) and Others, and Shiv Nandan Mahto Vs. State of Bihar and Others, .

In our considered view, the ratio of the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court relied upon is not applicable for the reason that the matter has been adjudicated by the court of law and after due adjudication, passed order to grant benefits of the intervening period. In the instant case, the impugned-order has been passed by the Grievance Committee on the basis of the voluntary undertaking furnished by the appellant and in consequence thereof had acted upon and once that was considered on merit and acted upon followed by his reinstatement in service vide order dated 08/07/2004, the appellant cannot now be permitted to resile therefrom and to claim wages/salary for the intervening period on the principles of ''no work no pay''.

We do not find any fault in the decision making process adopted by the respondents and taking a decision of withholding the salary/wages for the intervening period on the principles of ''no work no pay'' for which, an undertaking had already been furnished by him along with 17 officers.

We do not find any error in the impugned-order passed by the learned Single Judge and find no substance in the instant appeal.

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.