Telangana High Court
D. Janaki Rama Rao vs Govt. Of Ap. on 21 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P(Tr).No. 1964 of 2017
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the
impugned proceedings in RC.No.A1/SPF/90/2013,
O.O.No.335/13, dated 25.04.2013 and to quash the same in
so far as the condition that the petitioner is not entitled for
backwages as stipulated in Government Circular Memo
No.32419/838/FR-1112003, dated 19.06.2004, as illegal,
arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and
consequently to direct the respondents to release the salary
to the petitioner for the period during which the petitioner
was granted invalid pension and till the date of reinstatement
i.e., from 05.08.2011 to 06.05.2013 with all consequential
benefits and to pass such other order or orders in the interest
of justice.
2. Brief facts leading to the file of the present writ
petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior
Assistant in the respondent No.2 office in the year 1995.
Subsequently, he was promoted as a Senior Assistant and
TMD,J
was working as such. In the month of June, 2005, the
petitioner was attacked with paralytic stroke and he was
bedridden for two months. Thereafter, on recouping his
health, he joined duty on 01.09.2005 by submitting a fitness
certificate issued by the concerned doctor of Yashoda
Hospital. The petitioner was permitted to join duty and was
performing his duties. However, he received a call notice
dated 20.05.2011 from the Superintendent, Gandhi Hospital,
Secunderabad, to appear before the Medical Board to conduct
medical examination by the Regional Medical Board and he
was directed to report on 31.05.2011 and the petitioner
appeared before the Regional Medical Board on 31.05.2011
for medical examination. Thereafter, vide proceedings in
Rc.No.A1-12/SPF/2011, O.O.No.A-560/2011, dated
05.08.2011, the petitioner was granted invalid pension under
Rule 37(1) of A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and that the
petitioner was held to be not-fit for the job as per the report of
Regional Medical Board dated 31.05.2011.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was not given any notice nor was any
TMD,J
explanation called for with regard to the report of the
hospital, but straightaway, the order of invalid pension was
passed. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed
O.A.No.7487 of 2011 before the APAT and the impugned
order was suspended and when the interim order was not
complied with by the respondents, the petitioner filed
Contempt Case i.e., C.A.No.1533 of 2011 and the
respondents have filed the VMA No.1902 of 2011 seeking
vacation of the interim orders. The Tribunal had set aside the
impugned order dated 05.08.2011 and directed the
respondents to shift the petitioner to some other post from
the post of Senior Assistant with same pay scale and service
benefits and if it is not possible to adjust him against any
post, he could be kept on a supernumerary post until a
suitable post was available or he attains the age of
superannuation, whichever is earlier and pass appropriate
orders thereon within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of the order. Subsequently, when the orders
of the Tribunal were not complied with, the petitioner had
filed C.A.No.1675 of 2012 and on a direction for personal
appearance of the respondent No.2, orders dated 25.04.2013
TMD,J
was passed by the respondents reinstating the petitioner into
service as an attender and the period of non-employment
from the date of the order i.e., 05.08.2011 to the date he joins
duty was treated as 'on duty', and also that he will not be
entitled for any backwages as stipulated in the Government
Circular Memo dated 19.06.2004, on the Principle that "no
work, no pay". It is submitted that subsequently, the
petitioner was restored as a Senior Assistant by an order
dated 27.03.2014 issued by the respondent No.2 as per the
instructions of the respondent No.1 vide Memo dated
26.03.2014. Aggrieved by the denial of the backwages from
the date of invalid pension i.e., from 05.08.2011 till the date
of joining duty in the year 2013, the petitioner approached
the Tribunal and thereafter, the case was transferred to High
Court and re-numbered as W.P.(Tr).No.1964 of 2017.
4. Learned Government Pleader for home appearing
for the respondents, submitted that the respondents have not
filed any counter affidavit and he sought time to file the
same.
TMD,J
5. On going through the material on record and
particularly the memo which has been referred to in the
impugned order for denial of the backwages to the petitioner,
this Court finds that the said Circular is not applicable to the
facts and circumstances of the case at all and therefore, this
Court is inclined to proceed to the dispose of the matter as
under:
6. By way of the impugned order, the respondents
have denied the backwages from the period of invalid pension
till the date of joining to duty. In the Circular Memo dated
19.06.2004 referred to in the impugned orders, the subject
itself mentions that it is in relation to the payment of
consequential benefits i.e., backwages for the period of
suspension in case of acquittal in Court cases and that the
said clarification instructions are issued on the basis of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. On further
reading of the Circular, it is noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Krishna Kanth Raghunath
Bibhavnekar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others in Civil
Appeal No.1868 of 1977 was dealing with the case of a
TMD,J
person, who was placed under suspension pending
disciplinary proceedings and the issue was as to how
suspension period was to be treated pending trial even after
acquittal. In view of the various other judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the department had directed the
authorities to consider the judgments while deciding the
issue of suspension period pending departmental or judicial
proceedings.
7. The facts of the case before this Court are clearly
distinguishable from the facts under which the said Circular
has been issued. The said circular would apply only to cases
where the delinquent employee was placed under suspension
pending disciplinary or judicial proceedings, whereas in the
present case, the petitioner was not under suspension, but
he was not allowed to join duty on the ground that there was
invalid pension and subsequently, due to judicial order of the
Court, he has been re-instated into service, therefore, the
Principle of 'no work, no pay' would not apply to the case on
hand. Therefore, the impugned order dated 25.04.2013 to the
extent of denying the backwages alone is set aside and the
TMD,J
respondents are directed to pay the backwages to the
petitioner for the period from 05.08.2011 to 06.05.2013 with
Simple Interest @ 6% per Annum from 06.05.2013 till the
date of payment.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 21.03.2024
bak
