Delhi High Court
D.K. Sharma vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 4 January, 2017
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 36/2017 & CM No.199/2017
Date of Decision : 4th January, 2017
D.K. SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.A. Sharma, Advocate
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sumit Kumar Batra, Advocate for
Mr. Abhishek Pundir, Advocate for
respondent No.4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not inclined to
interfere with the impugned order dated 14.7.2016, whereby OA
No.439/2014 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. In our opinion, the
Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioner would not be entitled to
backwages and consequential benefits for the period between 23.11.2006
and 1.12.2009 on the principle of "no pay for no work."
2. The petitioner had joined the Delhi Energy Development Agency
(„DEDA‟) as a Junior Engineer on 01.05.1986 and was promoted as
Assistant Engineer on 31.01.1994.
3. By the Office Order dated 5.10.2004, DEDA had declared 97
personnel, including the present petitioner, as surplus, to be redeployed by
the Services Department of the Government of National Capital Territory of
Delhi.
4. The petitioner, vide Office Order dated 2.12.2005, was redeployed as
Grade-II(DASS) in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/-.
5. Aggrieved, the petitioner had filed WP(C) No.8194/2006 before the
High Court, which was subsequently transferred to the Tribunal and
registered as TA No.900/09. The Tribunal, vide order dated 5.8.2009, held
that the redeployment of the petitioner and other applicants on the lower
post and on a lower pay-scale was wrong. The respondents were directed to
accommodate the petitioner and other applicants on the vacant posts that
may be equivalent in status and the pay scale paid to the petitioner and other
applicants in DEDA.
6. The petitioner in WP(C) No.8194/2006 had also filed an interim
application. The High Court had, vide order dated 24.5.2006, directed as
under:
"It is directed that anything done by the respondent during
pendency shall be subject to final outcome of the writ petition."
7. The petitioner has not filed a copy of the interim application, in which
the said order was passed.
8. The petitioner, inspite of the aforesaid interim order, did not join and
work at the post on which he was redeployed. This fact was also not brought
to the notice of the Tribunal, when TA No.900/2009 was disposed of vide
order dated 5.8.2009.
9. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, that the Tribunal, in the impugned
order, has recorded that the petitioner was absenting himself from duty,
inspite of the fact that no interim order was passed. Thus, the petitioner had
not joined and worked during the period 23.11.2006 to 1.12.2009 at his own
risk and peril. The grievance of the petitioner was that he was redeployed to
a post and pay scale in the Education Department lower than the pay scale
and post at which he was employed in the DEDA. This was the dispute
which had to be adjudicated. As long as the said dispute was sub judice and
pending in the High Court and the Tribunal and there was no interim stay,
the petitioner should have complied with the posting order give to him and
till the issue/dispute was adjudicated. The petitioner, therefore, has been
rightly denied the benefit of backwages for the period 23.11.2006 to
1.12.2009.
10. During the course of hearing, we had asked learned counsel for the
petitioner whether the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal would affect
the petitioner‟s pension. It is stated that the job of the petitioner is not
pensionable. It is also accepted that the period between 23.11.2008 and
1.12.2009 has not been treated as "break-in-service."
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
accrued leave which can be adjusted for the break between 23.11.2006 and
1.12.2009. It is open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application in
this regard, and if any such application is moved, the same would be
considered as per law.
12. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. CM
No.199/2017 is also dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J
JANUARY 04, 2017
tp
