Ram Prakash vs The Secretary & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 1935 Del

$~13
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                        Date of Decision: April 29, 2013

+                          W.P.(C) 2233/2012

      RAM PRAKASH                                   .....Petitioner
              Represented by:            Ms.Pragnya Routray, Advocate

                                    versus

      THE SECRETARY & ORS.                           ..... Respondents
               Represented by:           Mr.R.V.Sinha and Mr.A.S.Singh,
                                         Advocates for R-1 to R-3

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. The enrolment form required to be filled up by the petitioner, inter-alia, sought following information:-

"Whether candidate has been guilty for any offence by the court? If yes, the guilt and full particulars of conviction."

And we understand this to mean that the information sought was whether the candidate has been found guilty by a court for having committed an offence. If yes, the nature of the offence and conviction.

2. Suffice would it be to state that information sought was not : Whether the candidate was ever accused for having committed an offence?

3. It is not in dispute that the respondent was an accused for having committed an offence punishable under Section 380 IPC and criminal trial was proceeding when he filled up the enrolment form.

4. Thus, the respondent was fully justified in writing „NO‟ against the column in question.

5. Appointed as an Assistant Binder, services of the petitioner were terminated on March 26, 2009 alleging suppression.

6. O.A.No.1552/2009 filed by the respondent has been allowed by the Tribunal vide decision dated July 26, 2010, holding that with respect to the information sought, petitioner was justified in writing „NO‟. As a result it has been directed that the petitioner should be reinstated in service. On the principle of „No Work No Pay‟ back wages have been denied.

7. The petitioner is aggrieved by wages being denied to him.

8. On May 17, 2011, the respondent complied with the order passed by the Tribunal on July 26, 2010.

9. Since the principle of 'No Work No Pay‟ entitles the judicial for a to deny back wages, it being a discretion exercised by the Tribunal, we do not interfere with the same. More so, keeping in view the fact that the respondent continues to be facing trial for having committed an offence punishable under Section 380 IPC.

10. But we see no reason why the respondent would take 9 months and 21 days to comply with a decision against which the respondent had no grievance.

11. We find an ambiguity in the order passed by the Tribunal, in that, denying wages for the period petitioner remained without a job, directions have not been issued as to in what manner said period has to be computed for other purposes.

12. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition directing that the intervening period between when petitioner was sent home till he was re-employed would be treated as spent on duty for purposes of pension, if

the petitioner is in a pensionable service. If it is a non-pensionable service and petitioner has contributed to the Contributory Provident Fund for the period in question, the Management would make it‟s contribution in the Contributory Provident Fund account of the petitioner. The period would be treated as period spent on duty for purposes of notional increment.

13. No back wages would be paid for the period March 26, 2009 till one month after July 26, 2010 i.e. the date when the Tribunal passed the order in favour of the petitioner. For the period one month thereafter, the petitioner would be paid wages.

14. No costs.

15. Dasti.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(V. KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE

APRIL 29, 2013 rk