Union of India and Others vs Smt Bina Shah

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 25.05.2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, (for short `the CAT'') Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting, Bilaspur, whereby the CAT has directed the petitioner-Union of India and its authorities to pay back wages for the period from 26.09.2003 till 13.05.2008, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, without interest, thereon.

The facts, in this case are in narrow compass, the respondent, working as Postal Assistant, was dismissed from service on 01.10.1989. Thereagainst, the respondent preferred an application before the CAT in O.A. No. 849/2000. The CAT, by order dated 26.09.2003 (Annexure P/2) allowed the application modifying the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority to the extent that the disciplinary authority would pass a fresh order which can be any other penalty other than removal or dismissal from service, the applicant would reimburse the department all the monetary losses that was caused and the petitioner would not claim any arrears during the period she was out of job.

Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred a petition before this Court, being W.P. No. 1337/2004. A Division Bench, vide order dated 02.01.2008 (Annexure P/3) dismissed the petition holding that the authorities had no other option except to allow the respondent No. 1 therein, to work. It appears that several representations were made by the respondent herein, however, ultimately, in compliance of the order passed by the High Court, as aforestated, the respondent was reinstated in service on 13.05.2008. The representations preferred by the respondent on 28.08.2008 and 27.09.2008, for grant of arrears of wages from 26.09.2003 till date, was rejected by order dated 27.09.2008 (Annexure P/5).

Thereagainst, the respondent approached the CAT again by filing an application, being O.A. No. 135/2009 (Annexure P/6). The CAT, after having considered all the aspects of the matter, came to the conclusion that the petitioner authorities have failed to comply with the order of the CAT which was confirmed by the High Court. The said order of reinstatement was passed on 13.05.2008, after modifying the imposition of punishment to the extent of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect for a period of three years. Thus, the respondent was held as entitled to back wages for the period from26.9.2003 till 13.5.2008.

Contention of Shri Sharma, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the normal rule is that there should be no pay for no work. Since the respondent had not worked during the period, as aforestated, she was not entitled to any benefit. It was further contended that there was no order of reinstatement.

On the other hand, Ms. Farah Minhaz, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, would submit that it is also a general principle that if the removal has been found illegal, grant of back wages must follow. In support of her contention, she relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in Manorama Verma (Smt) v. State of Bihar & Others1.

The question, which arises for consideration before the CAT as well as this Court, is that asto when the petitioners, herein, have failed to comply with the order passed by the CAT, which was ultimately confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court and the relief granted by the CAT and confirmed by the High Court was granted after a period of about five years, whether the employee is entitled to arrears of wages for the said period.

There is no doubt that the petitioner authorities have taken their own time in not complying with the order. There was no stay of the order passed by the CAT during pendency of the writ petition before this Court, against the order dated 26.09.2003 (Annexure P/2). Further, this Court has held in its order dated 02.01.2008 that the petitioner authorities had no option but to allow the respondent to work as no interim order was granted. The relevant portion of the order dated 02.01.2008 (Annexure P/3) reads as under:

Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 had drawn our attention to the fact that though the judgment of the Tribunal was pronounced on 26.09.2003, aggrieved by the same this petition was filed and no interim order was granted by this Court, inspite of the same, respondent No. 1 has not been allowed to work though on several occasions she requested inter alia for the work to be allotted to her. We are of the considered opinion that the authorities had no other option except to allow respondent No. 1 to work.

In the instant case, the CAT by order dated 26.9.2003, without quashing the order of removal, modified the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority directing the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order, which can be any other penalty other than removal or dismissal from service. The employee was directed to reimburse all the monetary losses suffered by the department and further the employee would not claim any arrears during the period she was outside the job. The order of removal was not quashed and further there was no direction to reinstate the employee forthwith.

Thereagainst, a writ petition was filed before this Court, being W.P. No.1337 of 2004 The Senior Superintendent of Post & Others v. Smt. Bina Shah & Another. In the said petition, no interim relief was granted. Thus, the petitioner authorities ought to have complied with the order passed by the CAT. However, they did not comply with the order till this Court by order dated 2.2.2008 (Annexure - P/3) affirmed the order passed by the CAT.

It is a case of non-compliance of the order dated 26.9.2003 passed by the CAT within a reasonable time, but the compliance was done after the High Court passed the order affirming the order. On 13.5.2008 the employee was reinstated modifying the penalty withholding one year''s increment with cumulative effect for three years. Thus, it is a case of modification of disproportionate punishment imposed earlier.

Reliance of Ms. Farah Minhaz on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Manorama Verma (Smt), Ku. Sarita Thakur v. Union of India & Another2, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. B.Vikram Reddy3 and Union of India & Others v. P.K.Kuttappan4, is not relevant to the facts of the case, as in all the aforestated cases, the removal was quashed and order of reinstatement was passed. The employer failed to comply with the order of reinstatement. Thus, direction to pay back wages was passed.

It is well settled proposition of law, as aforestated, that if there is no stay of the order passed by the CAT, the authorities were under an obligation to comply with the order within a reasonable time. In the case on hand, though the writ petition was preferred before this Court, however, no interim relief was granted to the petitioners and ultimately, by order dated 02.01.2008 (Annexure P/3), the petition was dismissed, confirming of the order of the CAT.

The impugned order passed by the CAT is not in accordance with the well settled proposition of law, if there was no direction for reinstatement, the back wages could not have been granted for delay in complying with the order dated 26.9.2003 passed by the CAT.

It is evident that the order was complied with within reasonable time after dismissal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner authorities, by this Court. On the ground of laxity and irresponsible conduct of the authority in not complying with the order passed by the CAT, within reasonable time, the employee (respondent herein) is at the most entitled to cost, not the back wages.

For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the order dated 25.5.2010 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the CAT is modified to the above extent. The petitioner authorities are directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the employee for causing delay in compliance of the order dated 26.9.2003 passed by the CAT, within a period of four weeks.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.