Ram Sharik Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Case at a glance
Held
The court held that the denial of back wages was unlawful. The impugned orders dated 4.5.1994 and 12.9.1997 were declared illegal, and the petitioner was entitled to full back wages from 13.4.1988, plus a lump sum for the interregnum period.
Summary
AI-generated summaryWritten by AI from the judgment text below. It is not part of the judgment and is not legal advice — read the original before relying on it.
Facts
Ram Sharik Singh, a former Forest Guard who became a permanent employee in 1977, was terminated in 1982 for an unauthorized leave. The termination order was set aside by a trial court in 1988, but the state denied him back wages, citing a "no work, no pay" principle.
Issues
- Whether the denial of back wages to a permanently employed Forest Guard, whose termination order was set aside, is justified under the "no work, no pay" principle.
- Whether the state was required to grant back wages in accordance with the trial court’s judgment.
Holding
The court held that the denial of back wages was unlawful. The impugned orders dated 4.5.1994 and 12.9.1997 were declared illegal, and the petitioner was entitled to full back wages from 13.4.1988, plus a lump sum for the interregnum period.
Reasoning
The court noted that the petitioner was a permanent employee who had rendered over 17 years of service and that the trial court had set aside his termination. It found that the state’s application of the "no work, no pay" principle was inapplicable because the petitioner was not engaged in any other employment and had been denied a hearing. The denial was therefore arbitrary and contrary to law.
Practical significance
The decision reinforces that permanent employees who have their termination orders set aside are entitled to back wages, and that the "no work, no pay" principle cannot be applied to deny such wages when the employee has not been engaged in any other employment.
Judgment
relnstated. However, as regards back wages the trial Court ieft the same to be decided by the department arter giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner and if u!timate!y the petitioner is founa' to be entitled for the same in accordance with law it should ae given to him. The department chailenged the judgment and a'ecree passed by the triaS Court before the District Judge, Raipur under Sectlon 96 read wifh Order 41 Rule 1 of the Coae of Civii Procedure which on formation of the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative TnbynaS-eame to be transferred there and it was registered as T.A. No. 44/1992. The Tribunal after hearing the psrtles dismissed the appeai fiied by the department vide order dated 24.9.93. It is not a'isputed that no appea! has been preferred by any one against the order of the Tribunai dated 24.9.93 and thu's the impugned judgmenf and decree dated 13.4.1988 attained finality.
for giving him permission to join his duties but Counsei for the petitioner submits that after passing of the judgment and decree dated 13.4.1988 by the triai Court, the petltioner approached the department department adamantly refused the petitioner to do so on the pretext of appea! having been preferrea' against the judgrnent and decree of the trisl court. Uitjmateiy after the judgment and decree of the trial Court was affirmea' by the Tribunat vide order dated 24.9.93 the petitioner was permitted to join his duties on 21.2.94 as Forest Guard. According to the for the petitioner even after a consistent and persistent request counsel made by the petltioner for permitting him to join his dutles and reiease his back wages in the llght of the judgment and decree of the trial Court, instead of the department itraightaway informed ths petitioner by a communication ietter dated 12.9.97 that a decision had atready been taken by the respondent No.1 on taking any positive view of the matter, "'Nii.ii: •^l Ki 1
4.5.94 whereby he has been held as disenSitied for the back wages claimed by hirn for the period 10.6.81 to 20.2.94. He further submits that the petitioner has'not been given any opportunity of hearing in compiiance of the judgment and decree passed by the triai Court and the decision taken by the respondent No.1 regarding denial of back wages to the petltioner is a unilateral one and therefore ihe petitioner is entitled for back wages right from the date from whlch the petitioner allegedly absented reason that his termination for his aiieged from his duties for She unauthorized absence has been set aside by the trla! Court which ultimateiy came to be sffirmed by the Tribunai in an appeal prererred by -3- the department. Counsei for the petltioner laid much stress ar, the point that the petitioner was not engaged in any gainfui employme.nt after his termination from services; rather he kept himself under the disposal of the authorities concerned IQ oblige him by giving joining in compliance of the judgment and decree passed by the tria! Court. Thus, in totality the argument ofthe petitioner is that under no circumstance the petltioner csn be denied the grant of back wages foliowing the principle of "no work no pay". -- ; •
Countering the submissions of the counsei for the petitloner, iearned Dy. Govt. A.dvocate appearing for the respondents submits that the order dated 12.9.97 is merely a communication of the order dated 4.5.94 by which the services of the petitloner were terminated and therefore instead of order dated 12.9.97 the petitioner should have assaited the order dated issued by the 4.5.94. He further submits that by letter dated 15.3.94 Divisional Forest Officer the petitioner vi/as asked to remaln present on that very day and put Torth his case and thus he v/as given due opportunity of hearing in compiiance with the judgment and decree passed by the trial CoUi-t. Accordlng to him, whiie on 15.3.94 the proceedings were on, petitioner appeared before the Divisional Forest Officer and pleaded that he had left his headquarter on the basis of oral permisslon from his superior. Thus as the petitioner himself has admitted that he left headquarters on oral permission of his supenor, he is not entitled for any
Replying to fhis submission of the State counsei it has besn argued on behalf of the petitioner that the record maintained by the authorities is self eioquent as to the manner in v/hich the opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. According to him, letter dated 1 5.3.94 was issued to to remain present before the authorities the petitioner asking him' concerned on ibat very day and vi/hen the petitloner did that, hls signatures 'A'ere o&tained on a blank paper and ail the proceedings have been draviiT. !t is also submitted on behalf of the behind the back of the petitioner. petitloner that he has also assailed the order dated 4.5.1994 by was denied the backwages claimed by him. -^f- Relying on the judgment or' the Supreme Court in the matter of 7. Unson of Ina'ia Vs. K.VJanakiraman learned counsel for the petitioner submits thst normally the ruie of "no work no pay" js not applicable to the cases where though the empioyee Is willjng to work but he is kept away by the authorities for no fault of his.
Further placing reiiance on the jua'gment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Kerala & Others Vs. it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that E.K.Bhaskaran PIIEai the principle of "no: Wori<- no pay" cannot be acceptea as a thumb rule and the monetary beneflt can be granted from the date of institution of the suit. Counsel for the petifioner also piaced reliance on the decision of the in the ma'iter of U.P.S.R.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Sarada Prasa< Supreme Court Misra & Another and submitted that the back wages can be awarded from the date of award. According to him, in this case the judgment and decree was passed bythe trial Court on 13.4.88 in favourofthe petitioner and from that very day the petitioner had been requesting the authorities to give him joining but the authoritles on the pretext of pendency of the appeal d!d not allow him to join. This fact has been admitted by the State !n paragraph 12 of its return saying that "s/nce the non- government appS'icants prefer an appeai against the jucfgment and decree of Civil Judgs Class-11, Ganyaband, the applicant was not permitted to jo'm".
He further submits thai even in spite of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court the petitioner was made to wander from pittar to post and uitimately was permitted to join his duties only on 21.2.94 which Is nothing but hig.h handedness on the part of the authorities. On the other hand, placing reliance on the decision of the Court in the matter of Airport Authority of indta & Others Vs. Nath Das @ S.N.Das submitted that nobody is entitled to claim the wages r'or the learned counsei :e remain absent from work without leave. -I have heard counsei for the parties at considerabie iength and gone
through the documents fiied by the respective parties.
It is not in dispute that termination order of the petitioner dated 19.7.82 terminating his services with effect from 10.6.82 was set aside by
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The court held that the denial of back wages was unlawful. The impugned orders dated 4.5.1994 and 12.9.1997 were declared illegal, and the petitioner was entitled to full back wages from 13.4.1988, plus a lump sum for the interregnum period.
What was the main issue before the Court?
Whether the denial of back wages to a permanently employed Forest Guard, whose termination order was set aside, is justified under the "no work, no pay" principle.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Chhattisgarh High Court, on 14 Jul 2009. The bench was PRITINKER DIWAKER.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.