Virendra Singh Bundela vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5947 MP

                                 1                                  W.P. No.3117/2019




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           AT JABALPUR
                                 BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                        ON THE 22nd OF APRIL, 2022

                    WRIT PETITION No. 3117 of 2019

        Between:-
        VIRENDRA SINGH BUNDELA S/O LATE SARDAR
        SINGH BUNDELA , AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
        OCCUPATION: RET. HIHER GRADE TEACHER R/O
        TAL DARWAJHA TIKAMGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                          .....PETITIONER
        (SHRI DILEEP PANDEY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER )

        AND

1.      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
        PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN
        BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. PRINCIPAL
        SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
        VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.      THE COMMISSIONER WOMEN AND CHILD
        DEVELOPMENT     DEPARTMENT     VALLABH
        BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.      THE COMMISSIONER RAJYA SHIKSHA KENDRA
        BHOPAL B WING VALLABH BHAWAN, (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

5.      DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICER WOMEN AND
        CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISTT-
        TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

6.      THE JOINT DIRECTOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
        DEPARTMENT DISTT-TIKAMGARH (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

7.      DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER TIKAMGARH
        DISTT-TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
        (SHRI DHEERAJ TIWARI, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
        RESPONDENTS/STATE )

      This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
                                        2                                       W.P. No.3117/2019



                                      ORDER

Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and propriety of order dt.18.12.2018 (Annexure

P/15), whereby salary and other consequential benefits have been denied to the petitioner on the basis of "no work no pay".

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been

made to retire at the age of 60 years on 31.07.2014. Being aggrieved, he had approached this Court in W.P. No.16917/2014, which came to be disposed of vide order dt.21.09.2016 directing the respondents to decide the representation. In

compliance of the aforesaid, order dt.18.12.2018 (Annexure P/15) has been passed, whereby though the age of superannuation has been treated as 62 years but the salary and other consequential benefits have been denied on the basis of "no work no pay". Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the various judgments passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court to show that the entire relief with regard to salary and other consequential benefits have been directed to be paid to the petitioners, who have been retired at the age of 60 years but could not continued up to the age of 62 years because of fault of the respondents. In such circumstances, this petition deserves to be allowed.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State opposed the prayer by filing return and stated that the petitioner has rightly been retired at the age of 60 years and since he did not discharge duties, therefore, he has been rightly denied

the salary on the basis of "no work no pay". He further relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Jaipal Singh as reported in 2004 (1) SCC 121 and Baldeo Singh Vs. Union of India and others as reported in 2005 (8) SCC 747 in support of his contention.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of the impugned order dt.18.12.2018 (Annexure P/15), it is seen

that while deciding the representation, the respondents have accepted that the petitioner ought to have been retired at the age of 62 years instead of 60 years but have denied the back wages and other benefits only on the ground of "no work no

work". "No work no pay" principle would be applicable only when it is fault of the petitioner. In the instant case, the petitioner was ready to discharge his duties up the age of 62 years but however, he was made to retire at the age of 60 years, therefore, the fault can not be attributed to the petitioner.

In such circumstances, the impugned order dt.18.12.2018 (Annexure P/15),

so far as it relates to non grant of salary and other benefits are concerned, is set aside. However, the decision taken by the State Government to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years shall remain intact. The respondents are

directed to make the payment of full back wages and other benefits for the intervening period when the petitioner remained out of service, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of

certified copy of the order.

If the payment is not made within the aforesaid period, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of actual payment. As a

consequence, the petitioner shall also be entitled for all consequential benefits.

With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.

(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE Shanu

Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2022.04.22 16:11:49 +05'30'