Delhi High Court
Delhi Khadi And Village ... vs J. S Khatri on 9 February, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 09.02.2012
+ W.P.(C) 7798/2011 & CM 17646/2011
DELHI KHADI AND VILLAGE
INDUSTRIES BOARD ... Petitioner
versus
J. S KHATRI ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr Aditya Madan
For the Respondent : Mr M.K. Bhardwaj
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has
impugned the order dated 09.08.2011 passed in OA 4378/2010 by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The issue before us is
only the question of salary for three months, during which the respondent was
employed as Officer on Special Duty, after his superannuation. According to the
petitioner, the respondent is only entitled to a token salary of ` 1 per month, to
which the respondent had agreed to. However, upon reading the order dated
02.04.2002, which came to be passed for the appointment of the applicant /
respondent as Officer on Special Duty to the Board for a period of three months,
we do not agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. The said order dated 02.04.2002 reads as under:-
"In pursuance of resolution No.8(i) of 37th meeting of the Board held
on 19.02.2002, Sh. J. S. Khatri, Ex-Director (Programmes) is hereby
appointed as an Officer on Special Duty (OSD) to the Board for a
period of 03 months with a token payment of Rs.1.00 per month, for
which he has agreed, till the Govt. decides about his emoluments,
with effect from 01.03.02."
2. A plain reading of the said order would indicate that the respondent had
agreed to accept a token payment of ` 1 per month but this was "till the
government decides about his emoluments". It does not mean that the respondent
had agreed that he would accept only the token payment of ` 1 per month. He
was definitely made to expect that he would be getting something more and that
was left to the decision of the government.
3. It is apparent that the government was expected to fix a reasonable
emolument insofar as the respondent's appointment as an Officer of Special Duty
was concerned for the period of three months beyond the date of his
superannuation. Unfortunately, the government has not fixed any emolument and
has tried to pin down the respondent to accept only ` 1 per month. The
government is expected to act fairly with regard to its employees and we do not
find that such a conduct would be becoming on the part of the government.
4. Consequently, we agree with the Tribunal that the respondent has to be
compensated for the period of three months, when he worked as an Officer of
Special Duty. But, we find that the order needs some modification. The Tribunal
had directed that the salary and allowances of the applicant / respondent for the
period he worked as an Officer of Special Duty, be worked out on the basis of the
last drawn salary and allowances from the post from which he retired. Since the
respondent has already received pension for the said three months, we feel that it
would be appropriate if he is paid 50% of his basic last drawn salary plus
dearness allowance thereon, as applicable at that point of time, as his
remuneration for the said period of three months. The said amount shall be
calculated along with interest @ 6% per annum. We are, however, not
interfering with the order of costs of ` 5,000/-.
The said payments would be made to the respondent within four weeks.
This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
V.K. JAIN, J
FEBRUARY 09, 2012
SR
