Bombay High Court
Shri Bhimrao S/O Pundlikrao ... vs Union Of India, Ministry Of Social ... on 26 October, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp5354.05.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5354/2005
PETITIONER: Shri Bhimrao s/o Pundlikrao Somkuwar
Aged about 36 years, Occ. - Lower Division Clerk,
Working under Ministry of Welfare (Scholarship
Cell), Govt. of India, New-Delhi, r/o Baba
Budha Nagar, Dr. Ambedkar Marg Post Office,
Nagpur.
ig ...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT : Union of India,
Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment
Through its under Secretary,
Shastri Bhavan, New -Delhi - 01.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.V. Kulkarni, Adv. with Shri S.K. Sable, Adv. for petitioner
Ms Neerja Chaubey, Advocate for respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 26.10.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 27.10.2004, so far as it rejects the
prayer of the petitioner for grant of back wages from the date of termination
till the date of his reinstatement. The petitioner has sought a direction
against the respondent to pay the pay and allowances to the petitioner for
the period from 21.11.1997 to 13.12.2004 with interest.
wp5354.05.odt
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the order, it appears that there is no scope for interference with
the order of the Tribunal, in the circumstances of the case. The services of
the petitioner were terminated in the year 1997 and the Tribunal found that
since certain allegations were made about the conduct of the petitioner and
about his unsatisfactory service, a departmental enquiry ought to have been
conducted against the petitioner before terminating his services. The
Tribunal also observed that since the petitioner was not paid one month
salary in lieu of the notice as per the appointment order, the termination
order was liable to be set aside. Though the Tribunal, in the circumstances of
the case, set aside the order of termination and directed the respondent to
reinstate the petitioner in service, the Tribunal held that the petitioner was
not entitled to the arrears of salary on the principle of "no work, no pay". It
appears that the Tribunal has declined to grant the arrears of salary to the
petitioner from the date of his termination to the date of his reinstatement in
view of the principle of "no work, no pay" and also in view of the facts that
led to the termination of the petitioner, though a specific reference is not
made to it. Since the view expressed by the Tribunal while declining to grant
the prayer in respect of the arrears of salary is a possible view, there is no
scope for interference with the same, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
wp5354.05.odt
Since we do not find any reason to interfere with the
impugned order of the Tribunal, so far as it rejects the prayer of the
petitioner for arrears of salary, we dismiss the writ petition with no order as
to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
