IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 542 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 10.8.2009
Ram Kishan
......Appellant
Vs.
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam,Ltd. and others
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
PRESENT: Dr.Balram Gupta, Sr. Advocate assisted by
Mr.Ram Kishan Advocate.
****
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral)
1. The appellant, who is now an advocate, has filed this appeal in
person against the judgment of the learned Single Judge . The operative part
of the judgment is as under:
” Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed,
the order dated 19.11.2003 (Annexure P-217)
is set aside and the petitioner is ordered to be
reinstated into service with all consequential
benefits. It is, however, clarified that the
petitioner will not be entitled to wages for
the period he was out of job.”
2. The appellant was working as Under Secretary (Legal) with the
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam,Ltd., and vide order dated 19.11.2003,
he was retired from service in public interest.
LPA No. 542 of 2009 [2]
4. Learned Single Judge held that only one adverse ACR was the
basis of the order and the said ACR was not justified. Accordingly, the
order of compulsory retirement was set aside. The appellant was ordered to
be reinstated with all consequential benefits, except back-wages for the
period he was out of job. LPA No. 646 of 2009 against the said order was
dismissed by us on 24.7.2009.
5. We have heard learned Senior Advocate instructed by the
appellant in person as well as in his capacity as an Advocate.
6. It has been argued that once order of compulsory retirement
was set aside, the direction to pay wages for the period the appellant was
out of job should have followed, as it was not the fault of the appellant that
he did not work. He was willing to work and the wages for the period for
which he was not allowed to work, could not be denied to him. Reliance
has been placed on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of
India , etc.etc. v. K.V.Janakiraman etc.etc. AIR 1991 Supreme Court
2010(1) and Pritam Singh v. Union of India and others [2005] 9
Supreme Court Cases 748 and judgment of this Court in Krishan Kumar
v. Haryana Statre Fed. Of Consumers” Coop. Wholesale Stores Ltd.
1997 (3) SLR 803.
7. We are unable to accept the submission. The principle laid
down in the judgments relied upon is not an absolute principle and has
been diluted in subsequent judgments including in State of Haryana v.
O.P.Gupta, 1996 (7) SCC 533, Para 8, State of Kerala v.
E.K.Bhaskaran Pillai (2007)6 SCC 524, para 4, Commr., Karnataka
LPA No. 542 of 2009 [3]
Housing Board v. C.Muddaiah (2007) 7 SCC 669, para 34, Union of
India v. B.M.Jha (2007) 11 SCC 632, para 5 and J.K.Synthetics v.
K.P.Agrawal and another (2007) 2 SCC 433.
7. Having regard to the facts of the present case, the learned
Single Judge having held that the appellant will not be entitled to any
wages for the period he was out of job, we do not find any ground to
interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
8. The appeal is dismissed.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
(DAYA CHAUDHARY)
August 10, 2009 JUDGE
raghav