Pet it ioners v. Prakash Chandr a Tiwari since deceased) represent ed t hrough his LRs

service. He challenged t he rem oval order before Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in a writ pet it ion. The said writ pet it ion was allowed by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court vide j udgm ent dat ed 01.12.1986 by holding t hat t he aut horit y who passed t he rem oval order, was not com pet ent for t he purpose. 1 I n com pliance of t he said j udgm ent , respondent

3. was reinst at ed in service vide order dat ed 14.02.1987. Respondent was not paid t he difference of salary for t he period during which he rem ained under suspension nor he was paid salary from t he dat e of his rem oval from service t ill his reinst at em ent . Respondent ret ired from t he post of senior clerk on 31.07.2015 and at t he t im e his ret irem ent , his basic pay was Rs. 38,106/ - per m ont h.

4. Respondent approached learned Labour Court for releasing t he am ount of leave encashm ent by cont ending t hat he had 300 days earned leave in his leave account and he was ent it led t o Rs. 3,81,060/ - as leave encashm ent .

5. He also claim ed t hat he is ent it led t o Rs. 12,500/ - as arrears of salary for t he period bet ween his rem oval from service t ill his reinst at em ent , as he was not paid any salary for t he said period.

6. Before learned Labour Court , pet it ioner t ook t he st and t hat t here is no order by com pet ent Court of law t o pay salary t o respondent for t he period bet ween his rem oval from service t ill t he dat e of his reinst at em ent . Regarding leave encashm ent , it was subm it t ed t hat Ut t arakhand Transport Corporat ion is running in a bad phase and due t o it s poor financial condit ion, none of it s em ployees has been paid leave encashm ent and t he leave encashm ent shall be paid t o t he em ployees when t heir t urn will com e as per order of preference depending on t he dat e of ret irem ent . 2 7. Based on m at erial on record, learned Labour Court ret urned a finding t hat a sum of Rs. 3,81,060/ - was sanct ioned as leave encashm ent payable t o t he respondent but t he sam e has not been paid t o him , t herefore, he is ent it led t o t he said am ount as leave encashm ent .

8. Regarding arrears of salary bet ween 18.01.1986 t o 14.02.1987, during which respondent rem ained out of em ploym ent on account of his rem oval from service, learned Labour Court held t hat since Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held t hat t he rem oval order was quashed on t he ground t hat it was not passed by com pet ent aut horit y, however, libert y was given t o t he em ployer t o proceed in t he m at t er as per law; t he em ployer did not pass any order pursuant t o t he libert y given by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court , t herefore, respondent is ent it led t o arrears of salary for t he said period.

9. Pet it ioner has challenged t he order passed by learned Labour Court on t he ground t hat respondent was not ent it led t o arrears of salary for t he period he rem ained out of em ploym ent as he had not discharged any dut y, t herefore, principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ is at t ract ed.

10. I t is furt her cont ended t hat while grant ing benefit of Assured Career Progression Schem e t o t he em ployees of Ut t arakhand Transport Corporat ion, pay of t he large num ber of em ployees was wrongly fixed and excess am ount was released t o t hem . 3 I t is furt her cont ended t hat when m ist ake was

11. det ect ed, t hen a special audit t eam was const it ut ed by St at e Governm ent and t he said audit t eam st art ed audit of salary paid t o 3395 em ployees of t he corporat ion in 2019; but , due t o COVI D- 19 Pandem ic, work of audit could not be com plet ed.

12. I t furt her cont ended t hat ACP of 3028 em ployees of t he corporat ion has been correct ed and salary of 1011 em ployees has been reduced. I n para 14 t he writ pet it ion, following st at em ent has been m ade: “ 14. That in pur suance t o t he special audit report , t he am ount of leave encashm ent of t he r espondent has been r e- fixed from Rs.3,81,060/ - t o Rs. 3,15,880/ - and am ount of Rs. 1,35,379/ - has been paid in ex cess t o him under t he head of Grat uit y and an am ount of Rs.3,96,360/ - has been paid in ex cess t o him under t he head of salar y due t o wrongful refixat ion which has t o be recov er ed from t he r espondent . And as such t he pet it ioner corporat ion has t o recover an am ount of Rs. 2,15,854/ - fr om t he r espondent w hich has been paid t o him in excess due t o wr ongful fixat ion of salary.”

13. The cont ent ion regarding excess paym ent m ade t o respondent cannot be accept ed at t his st age as t he said cont ent ion was not raised before t he learned Labour Court .

14. Even ot herwise also, in view of t he law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in t he case of St a t e o f Pu n j a b a n d o t h e r s Vs. Ra f i q M a si h ( W h i t e W a sh e r ) a n d o t h e r s, no recovery of excess am ount paid t o Class- I I I and Class- I V as salary, can be m ade unless such em ployee has received such excess paym ent by playing fraud. 4

15. I t is not t he case of pet it ioners t hat excess paym ent was m ade on account of fraud or m isrepresent at ion by t he respondent . Respondent passed

27.08.2022 represent at ives were subst it ut ed in his place.

16. From t he order passed by learned Labour Court , it is revealed t hat Rs. 3,81,060/ - was sanct ioned as leave encashm ent t o t he respondent , t herefore, learned Labour Court right ly direct ed t he pet it ioners t o release t he sanct ioned am ount t o him .

17. The direct ion t o pay t he arrears of salary t o respondent t he period bet ween 18.01.1986 t o

14.02.1987 also cannot be fault ed as he was rem oved from service by an officer not com pet ent t he purpose, t herefore, rem oval order passed against him is void- ab- init io. Thus it shall be deem ed t hat no rem oval order was passed against him and t he direct ion t o pay arrears of salary, t herefore cannot be fault ed.

18. Learned counsel for t he respondent produced copy of j udgm ent dat ed 04.04.2024 rendered by Division Bench of t his Court in Special Appeal No. 245 of 2022. He subm it t ed t hat recovery orders passed, by Ut t arakhand Transport Corporat ion against ot her em ployees, on t he ground t hat t heir pay was wrongly fixed while grant ing benefit of ACP, was set aside by learned Single Judge and t he j udgm ent rendered by learned Single Judge was affirm ed by Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 245 of 2022 and ot her connect ed appeals. 5

19. Perusal of t he j udgm ent rendered in Special Appeal No. 245 of 2022 reveals t hat as m any as 37 Special Appeals filed by Ut t arakhand Transport Corporat ion challenging j udgm ent passed by learned Single Judge, were dism issed.

20. For t he aforesaid reasons, t he writ pet it ion fails and is dism issed. Pet it ioner is direct ed t o release t he m onet ary benefit s t o t he respondent wit hin one m ont h from t oday. I n case of delay beyond one m ont h, unpaid am ount shall carry int erest at t he rat e of 6% per annum . Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.)

08.08.2025 DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH 6