Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8792/2007 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8792 of 2007
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
==========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
==========================================
UNION
OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Versus
KANTIBHAI
DAHYABHAI HARIJAN
==========================================Appearance
:
MS AVANI S
MEHTA for the Petitioners
SUNITA S CHATURVEDI
for the Respondent
==========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
Date
: 12/09/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)
1. The
respondent was removed by way of penalty on 6.2.2000 and reinstated
in service as Safaiwala upon his appeal being allowed on the ground
that he was not allowed to join his duty, after his being arrested
for the charge of which he was subsequently acquitted. At the
time of allowing his appeal, Appellate Authority did not make any
order regarding consequential benefits flowing from the order setting
aside removal from service. Upon the respondent approaching the
Central Administrative Tribunal, it was observed that the Appellate
Authority ought to have made specific orders relating to pay and
allowances required to be paid to the respondent herein for the
period of his absence from duty preceding his removal and also in
respect of the subsequent period. Therefore, relying upon Rule 1343
of the Indian Railways Establishment Code (F.R. 54), it is held by
the Tribunal that delay in completing the enquiry against the
respondent having not been attributed to the respondent, he was
entitled to full service benefits and prosecuting agency having
failed to bring home the charge against the respondent and the
Appellate Authority having decided in favour of the respondent, the
case of the respondent was required to be considered for payment of
full salary and service benefits for both the periods between
12.12.1995 to 21.4.1999 and from 11.02.2000 to 01.03.2001.
2. Learned
counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the respondent had
not actually worked during the aforesaid period, the principle of ‘No
Work No Pay’ was required to be applied and the respondent was
required to be denied wages for the intervening period. Learned
counsel relied upon recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Baldev
Singh Vs. Union of India and others (AIR 2006 SC 531). It was,
however, seen from the record and it was not in dispute that
absence of the respondent from duty was attributable to action of
the authorities in not allowing him to resume his duties and the
period after the respondent’s removal from service could only be
attributed to the order of removal, which was set aside by the
Appellate Authority. Since the issue of wages for the intervening
period is squarely covered by the express provisions of the Rules
applicable in the facts of the present case, we find no reason to
interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The petition is,
therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to cost.
Interim relief granted earlier shall stand vacated.
(BHAGWATI
PRASAD, J.)
(D.H.WAGHELA,
J.)
omkar
Top