Chattisgarh High Court
M. M. Chaturvedi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 January, 2022
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 531 of 2019
M. M. Chaturvedi S/o Late Shri Parasnath Chaturvedi Aged About
59 Years R/o Shubham Vihar, Police Station Civil Lines, Tehsil
And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General
Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal
Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur CG, District : Raipur, CG
2. Secretary Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya,
Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur CG, District : Raipur, CG
3. Chief Conservator Of Forest Bilaspur Circle, District Bilaspur CG,
District : Bilaspur, CG
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Adv.
For Respondents : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Adv.
Reserved on 7-1-2022
Judgment delivered on 24-1-2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Chandravanshi, Judge
CAV JUDGMENT
Per N.K. Chandravanshi, J.
1. This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 3-5-2019
passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 5384/2017, whereby
the order dated 11-9-2017 of compulsory retirement of
appellant/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') passed by
the respondents was set aside/quashed and direction was issued for
reinstatement of petitioner. He was held entitled to all consequential
benefits, but monetary benefits for the intervening period were denied.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Ranger in the
year 1992 and he completed probation period in the year 1994. In the
D.P.C. held in the year 2015, he was found suitable for promotion from
the post of Ranger to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest, but
due to insufficiency of vacancy, he could not be promoted. Again in the
year, 2016, he was found fit for promotion by the D.P.C. and vide order
dated 19-9-2016, he was promoted from the post of Ranger to the post
of Assistant Conservator of Forests. But vide order dated 11-9-2017, the
respondents, invoking the provisions contained in Rule 2 (A) of the
Fundamental Rules, 1956 and Sub Rule (1) (B) of Rule 42 of
Chhattisgarh Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976, compulsorily retired
him. The petitioner assailed the order of his compulsory retirement dated
11-9-2017 by filing WP(S) No. 5384/2017. The same was allowed in part
by the learned Single Judge, as has been stated in para 1 of this
judgment. Since, the learned Single Judge did not grant relief regarding
monetary benefits for the intervening period, this writ appeal was filed for
aforesaid limited grievance.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned
Single Judge, while considering the order of compulsory retirement
dated 11-9-2017 at length, has found that the order of compulsory
retirement was absolutely arbitrary, malafide, unreasonable and
unjustifiable. No fault of petitioner of any nature was found. No ground
has also been specified in the order for denying monetary benefits. The
learned Single Judge ought to have granted relief of monetary benefits
for the intervening period also. He would further submit that principal of
"No work, no pay" is not applicable in this case, because the petitioner
was prevented from doing his work due to illegal order of compulsory
retirement passed by the respondents and also because the petitioner
was not gainfully employed during that intervening period. Further
contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner is that due to such
illegality committed by the respondents, the petitioner suffered
irreparable loss including monetary loss. If he is not granted monetary
benefits for the intervening period, then it would amount to approval of
wrong done by the respondents, which would cause gross injustice to
the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner would next submit that
the Rule 54 (A) (1) and (3) of the Fundamental Rules, 1956 also
provides that if compulsory retirement of a government servant is set
aside by the Court on merits of the case, then he shall be entitled to full
pay and allowances for the period to which, he would have been entitled.
He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Shobha Ram Raturi Vs. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam
Limited and others reported in [(2016) 16 SCC 663]. Thus, he prayed
for grant of relief as has been sought for.
4. Learned State counsel, while supporting the reply filed by him,
would submit that respondents did not assail the order passed by the
learned Single Judge and the same has been complied with and
implemented in its letter and spirit. After passing of that order, the
petitioner submitted his joining report on 27-9-2019, which was allowed
by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner filed this belated writ
appeal deliberately, i.e. after execution of the order. He would further
submit that since the petitioner has acquiesced his right as order has
been complied with, and therefore, he cannot challenge the order
passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the order passed by the
learned Single Judge does not call for any interference in this writ
appeal.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record and also gone through the order passed by
the learned Single Judge. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge shows that the matter of compulsory retirement of
the petitioner has been considered on the basis of merits of his service
record and considering all the aspects, has observed in para 25 and 26
as under :-
"25. Perusal of the contents of the pleadings that have
been brought on record by way of reply and additional
return of the State, it does not reveal any strong material
produced by the State which can be said to be adverse so
far as service record of the petitioner is concerned,
inasmuch as, there is no adverse entry in the ACR, there
is no punishment in the recent past except for one minor
punishment that too was inflicted 10 years ago and the
overall grading in the ACR also not being below "Good",
this court is of the opinion that the impugned order
therefore is bad in law and the same is in contravention
firstly to the guidelines framed by the State vide their
circular dated 25.04.2017 and at the same time, the same
is also without any basis or sufficient materials while
scrutinizing the case of the petitioner.
26. The impugned order dated 11.09.2017 therefore
being not sustainable deserves to be and is accordingly
set aside/quashed. Consequently, it is ordered that the
petitioner shall be reinstated in service and he would also
be entitled for all consequential benefits. However, so far
as monetary part is concerned, the petitioner would not
be entitled for monetary benefits for the intervening
period, but the benefits shall be given to the petitioner by
giving him notional fixation."
6. Learned Single Judge has held specifically that the order of
compulsory retirement of petitioner is bad in law and the same is not
only in contravention of guidelines framed by the State itself, but also, it
has been passed without any basis or sufficient material. No reason has
been assigned as to why monetary benefits for the intervening period
has not been allowed to the petitioner. Ground raised by the petitioner
before this Court that he was not gainfully employed during the
intervening period is un-controverted by the respondents.
7. The provisions governing compulsory retirement of a government
servant, which is subsequently set aside by the Court on merits of the
case, have been provided in the Rule 54 (A) (1) and (3) of the
Fundamental Rules, 1956 which read thus:-
"F.R. 54-A (1). Where the dismissal, removal or
compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set
aside by a Court of Law and such Government servant is
re-instated without holding any further enquiry, the period
of absence from duty shall be regularised and the
Government servant shall be paid pay and allowances in
accordance with the provisions of sub-rules (2) or (3)
subject to the directions, if any, of the Court.
(2) xxx xxx xxx
(3) If the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of
a Government servant is set aside by the Court on the
merits of the case, the period intervening between the
date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement
including the period of suspension preceding such
dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case
may be, and the date of re-instatement, shall be treated
as duty for all purposes and he shall be paid full pay and
allowances for the period to which he would have been
entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or
compulsory retired, or suspended prior to such dismissal,
removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be.
(4) xxx xxx xxx
(5) xxx xxx xxx"
8. In the case of Shobha Ram Raturi (supra), which is a case similar
to the present case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 3 as
under :-
"3. 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".
9. Now, reverting to the present case, as has been mentioned above,
learned Single Judge while considering merits of the case of compulsory
retirement of the petitioner, has observed that the order of compulsory
retirement of the petitioner is not only bad in law, but also, in
contravention of the guidelines framed by the State. But, without any
basis and mentioning any reason, learned Single Judge denied the
monetary benefits for the intervening period to the petitioner. The
petitioner could not discharge his duties because of the wrongful order
passed by the respondents, as otherwise, he would have readily
discharged his duties. In the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that
the principle of "no work, no pay" is not applicable.
10. Having considered the aforesaid Fundamental Rules and
observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shobha
Ram Raturi (supra), and also taking into consideration all the facts, as
observed above, we find that denial of monetary benefit to the petitioner
for the intervening period is not sustainable in law.
11. In view of the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are satisfied that
the order impugned passed by learned Single judge, to the limited extent
of denying monetary benefits for the intervening period, i.e. from
11-9-2017 to 27-6-2019, deserves to be and is hereby modified, and it is
directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to full pay and allowances for
the aforesaid period, to which he would have been entitled, had he not
been compulsorily retired.
12. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (NK Chandravanshi)
Chief Justice Judge
Pathak/-
