Jharkhand High Court
Bokaro Steel Limited vs Meena @ Mina Devi on 14 November, 2024
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 723 of 2024
Bokaro Steel Limited, through Mr. J.T. Kongari, aged about 53 years,
son of Late P.L. Kongari, working as General Manager (Law), Steel
Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Limited, P.O. B.S. City, P.S.
B.S. City, District Bokaro (Jharkhand) ... Respondent No.1/Petitioner
Versus
1. Meena @ Mina Devi, aged about 55 years, wife of Late Rabindra
Nath.
2. Binita, aged about 34 years, daughter of Late Rabindranath.
3. Amita Sinha, aged about 32 years, daughter of Late Rabindranath.
4. Sweta Sinha, aged about 30 years, daughter of Late Rabindranath.
5. Ankita sinha, aged about 29 years, daughter of Late Rabindranath.
All residents of Quarter No. 1695, Sector 9 D, P.O. Sector-9, P.S.
Harla, District Bokaro-827009, e-mail:[email protected]
... Applicants / Respondents.
6. Union of India, Ministry of Steel and Mines, through the Secretary,
New Delhi, P.O. Shastri Nagar, P.S. Shastri Nagar, New Delhi-
110001.
7. The General Manager (P&A) B, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel
City, P.O. B.S. City, P.S. B.S. City, District Bokaro-827001.
8. The Chief Personnel Manager (Works), Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro
Steel City, P.O. B.S. City, P.S. B.S. City, District Bokaro-827001.
9. The Jr. Manager (Pers-W-RCG), Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel
City, P.O. B.S. City, P.S. B.S. City, District Bokaro-827001.
... Respondents / Proforma Respondents.
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
For the Resp-SAIL: Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate
Mr. Himanshu Harsh, Advocate
For the UOI/CBI: Mr. Anil Kumar, Addl. S.G.I.
Ms. Chandana Kumari, A.C. to A.S.G.I.
---------
04/Dated: 14.11.2024
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral)
1) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order
dated 18.07.2023 in OA/151/00602/2002 with connected MAs passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench.
-1 of 5-
2) One Rabindra Nath was an employee of the petitioner herein.
The respondents 1 to 5 are his legal heirs.
3) The said Rabindra Nath was convicted by CBI on 31.01.2007
under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On the basis of the
said conviction, the petitioner had dismissed him from 26.05.2007. The
said individual had filed an appeal to the High Court challenging his
conviction by the CBI Court and on 02.11.2012 he was acquitted by the
High Court.
4) Soon after the order was passed by the High Court, he
approached the petitioner and on the strength of the judgment of
acquittal, requested the petitioner to reinstate him in service and allow
him to join the work. The representations given by him are dated
24.11.2012, 18.01.2013, 08.08.2013 and 27.09.2013.
5) Only on 11.10.2013 the petitioner issued an order for his deemed
reinstatement effective from the date of dismissal, i.e., 26.05.2007 but
denying back wages for the period after his reinstatement on the basis
of "no work no pay" principle. He also crossed the age of
superannuation of sixty years on 30.09.2013.
6) On 07.01.2014 he gave a representation to the petitioner seeking
full back-wages with all consequential benefits. He then filed W.P. (S)
No. 5590 of 2014 before this Court. However, he died on 21.05.2021
due to Covid-19 and his legal heirs were substituted in the writ petition
by the High Court.
7) On 12.07.2022 the High Court disposed of the writ petition giving
liberty to the legal heirs of the deceased-employee to approach the
Central Administrative Tribunal.
-2 of 5-
8) They again filed OA/051/00602/2022 before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench. They sought quashing of part of
the Office Order dated 11.10.2013 passed by the petitioner and
communicated to Late Rabindra Nath, whereby, while ordering for his
reinstatement w.e.f. 26.05.2007 up to the date of his superannuation,
i.e., 30.09.2013, the petitioner had deprived him of back-wages with all
other consequential benefits on the ground of 'No Work No Pay'. They
sought a direction to the petitioner to pay to them back-wages for the
period 26.05.2007 to 30.09.2013 and also all consequential benefits
payable to him as claimed by Rabindra Nath in his representation dated
07.01.2014 with interest.
9) The petitioner contested the O.A. and reiterated the stand that
the deceased-employee was not entitled to the said reliefs and prayed
for the dismissal of the O.A.
10) On 18.07.2023 the said Central Administrative Tribunal allowed
the O.A. and directed the petitioner to issue fresh order of reinstatement
of the deceased-employee for the period between the date of dismissal
and date of acquittal by the High Court, treating this period as continuity
in service with all consequential benefits except back-wages; to make
payment of arrears of salary from the date of acquittal till the date of
superannuation treating him as on duty during that period; to revise the
PPO and orders for other retiral benefits in terms of the above
directions; and to pay 8% annual interest on the arrears of salary,
pensions and other retiral benefits.
11) To the extent the Tribunal had granted arrears of salary from
02.11.2012, the date of the acquittal of the deceased-employee, till
-3 of 5-
30.09.2013, the date of his superannuation, and to the extent it also
directed 8% annual interest, this writ petition has been preferred.
12) Counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that the petitioner is
not bound to grant arrears of salary from the date of acquittal till the
date of superannuation or to pay any interest on the ground that the
deceased-employee had not worked during this period and the principle
of 'no work no pay' would apply.
13) The counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that after the
acquittal of the deceased-employee on 02.11.2012, he immediately
made a request from 24.11.2012 onwards for reinstatement, but no
reply was given to the deceased-employee to any of his
representations, nor was he reinstated.
14) The petitioner appears to have written a letter on 23rd April, 2013,
almost five months after the acquittal of the deceased-employee by the
High Court, to the CBI to know the status of any appeal which the CBI
intends to file against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the High
Court. The CBI replied to it on 05.08.2013, three and half months later,
saying that it had decided not to file an appeal/revision for challenging
the judgment dated 02.11.2012 of the High Court in Cr. Appeal (SJ)
No.183 of 2007.
15) We are unable to understand what prevented the petitioner from
writing to the CBI immediately after the deceased-employee made
representation on 24.11.2012 for his reinstatement, and why they had
to wait till 23.04.2013 to write such a letter to the CBI. Counsel for the
petitioner is unable to explain this conduct on the part of the petitioner.
16) Since admittedly the judgment of the High Court acquitting the
deceased-employee attained finality on 02.11.2012, and in spite of his
-4 of 5-
representations for reinstatement the petitioner has not chosen to
reinstate him into the service, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take
advantage of its own wrong and deny to the deceased-employee
benefits flowing from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal
with regard to payment of arrears of salary from 02.11.2012 to
30.09.2013 as well as interest of 8% thereon and also on the pension
and other retirement benefits.
17) The principle of 'no work no pay' will not apply in this situation
since it was the petitioner who prevented the deceased-employee from
working in the petitioner-Organization.
18) In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the writ
petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage. No costs.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
N.A.F.R.
Manoj/Pramanik/Cp.2
-5 of 5-
