The Apex Court in Union of India and Others v. K.V. Jankiraman and Others

2. The writ petition has been filed assailing one of the conditions in the order dated 6.11.2013, whereby the Regional Higher Education Officer, Agra has approved the appointment of the petitioners, which was notified on 6.12.2001 to restrict the payment of salary only from the date of joining i.e. from

9.11.2013.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the said condition only on the ground that impugned orders were passed consequent upon the disposal of the Writ A No. 39146 of 2002 dated 19.9.2013.

4. As the earlier rejection order of approval of petitioner's appointment dated 2.8.2002 has been assailed in the said writ petition after considering the entire material, this Court has passed the following orders: "Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly there were four vacancies in class IV in the present advertisement published in the newspaper on 6.12.2001. The last date for submission of the application was 28.12.2001 and process for selection was started on 30.12.2001 and in the meantime on 12.12.2001 the approval was granted for selection. Out of four post it was specified in the advertisement regarding reserved category. The writ petition has already been dismissed for want of prosecution. The names of the petitioners were recommended by the selection committee and as such respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh in view of the changed circumstances and fact of the present case and pass a fresh speaking order to accord approval and appointment of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months after furnishing certified copy of this order. With the above observation, this petition is finally disposed off. No order as to cost."

5. Findings of this Court in the abovesaid referred judgment is that rejection is bad and accordingly, set aside and remanded the matter for fresh consideration declaring that the petitioners were selected as per the procedure. Once, the Court has set aside the earlier orders and remanded the matter for fresh consideration and the respondent-authorities have reconsidered and approved the appointments on 8.11.2013. Hence, at any rate, the petitioners are entitled to salary from their initial appointment.

6. Learned Standing Counsel based on the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, has contended that the appointment of the petitioners were not in conformity with Section 60A (iii) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. Hence, they are not entitled for any relief.

7. Though, the issue involved in the present writ petition is with regard to the entitlement of salary from the date of disapproval order passed by the authorities i.e. 2.8.2002. The Apex Court in Union of India and Others Vs. K.V. Jankiraman and Others, 1991 (4) Supreme Court Cases 109 has held that principle of 'no work no pay' is not applicable in cases where the employee is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. Relevant paragraphs of the above-referred judgment is as under: "24. It was further contended on their behalf that the normal rule is "no work no pay". Hence a person cannot be allowed to draw the benefits of a post the duties of which he has not discharged. To allow him to h do so is against the elementary rule that a person is to be paid only for the work he has done and not for the work he has not done. As against this, it was pointed out on behalf of the concerned employees, that on many occasions even frivolous proceedings are instituted at the instance of interested persons, sometimes with a specific object of denying the promotion due, and the employee concerned is made to suffer both mental agony and privations which are multiplied when he is also placed under suspension, When, therefore, at the end of such sufferings, he comes out with a clean bill, he has to be restored to all the benefits from which he was kept away unjustly.

25. We are not much impressed by the contentions advanced on behalf of the authorities. The normal rule of "no work no pay" is not applicable to cases such as the present one where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. This is not a case where the employee remains away from work for his own reasons, although the work is offered to him. It is for this reason that F.R. 17(1) will also be inapplicable to such cases."

8. On perusal of record and also the orders passed by this Court in Writ A No. 39146 of 2002, as well as law laid by the Apex Court in case of K.V. Jankiraman (supra), it shows that the earlier orders were contrary and bad and accordingly, the matter was remitted back to the authorities to consider afresh as per the findings given in the said writ petition. That itself clarifies that liberty has given to the authorities only to consider the appointment of the petitioners for approval. Once, the authorities have approved that should be date back to the original appointment or at least earlier consideration of disapproval dated 2.8.2002, but not the date of approval which was 8.11.2013. This Court found that the appointments are subject to selection and the selection was based on the approval granted by the competent authority and undisputedly, the petitioners are in the select list as per their merit and there is no dispute that they are all appointed and continuing in sixth respondent's institution.

9. In the said circumstances, the impugned orders 6.11.2013 restricting the salaries from the date of their joining is set aside and the respondents are directed to release the salaries of the petitioners w.e.f. 2.8.2002 i.e. the date of disapproval of petitioners' selection on a nonexistent ground. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

10. With the abovesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 Noman (Donadi Ramesh, J.) NOMAN AHMAD NOMAN AHMAD NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. The writ petition has been filed assailing one of the conditions in the order dated 6.11.2013, whereby the Regional Higher Education Officer, Agra has approved the appointment of the petitioners, which was notified on 6.12.2001 to restrict the payment of salary only from the date of joining i.e. from

9.11.2013.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the said condition only on the ground that impugned orders were passed consequent upon the disposal of the Writ A No. 39146 of 2002 dated 19.9.2013.

4. As the earlier rejection order of approval of petitioner's appointment dated 2.8.2002 has been assailed in the said writ petition after considering the entire material, this Court has passed the following orders: "Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly there were four vacancies in class IV in the present advertisement published in the newspaper on 6.12.2001. The last date for submission of the application was 28.12.2001 and process for selection was started on 30.12.2001 and in the meantime on 12.12.2001 the approval was granted for selection. Out of four post it was specified in the advertisement regarding reserved category. The writ petition has already been dismissed for want of prosecution. The names of the petitioners were recommended by the selection committee and as such respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh in view of the changed circumstances and fact of the present case and pass a fresh speaking order to accord approval and appointment of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months after furnishing certified copy of this order. With the above observation, this petition is finally disposed off. No order as to cost."

5. Findings of this Court in the abovesaid referred judgment is that rejection is bad and accordingly, set aside and remanded the matter for fresh consideration declaring that the petitioners were selected as per the procedure. Once, the Court has set aside the earlier orders and remanded the matter for fresh consideration and the respondent-authorities have reconsidered and approved the appointments on 8.11.2013. Hence, at any rate, the petitioners are entitled to salary from their initial appointment.

6. Learned Standing Counsel based on the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, has contended that the appointment of the petitioners were not in conformity with Section 60A (iii) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. Hence, they are not entitled for any relief.

7. Though, the issue involved in the present writ petition is with regard to the entitlement of salary from the date of disapproval order passed by the authorities i.e. 2.8.2002. The Apex Court in Union of India and Others Vs. K.V. Jankiraman and Others, 1991 (4) Supreme Court Cases 109 has held that principle of 'no work no pay' is not applicable in cases where the employee is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. Relevant paragraphs of the above-referred judgment is as under: "24. It was further contended on their behalf that the normal rule is "no work no pay". Hence a person cannot be allowed to draw the benefits of a post the duties of which he has not discharged. To allow him to h do so is against the elementary rule that a person is to be paid only for the work he has done and not for the work he has not done. As against this, it was pointed out on behalf of the concerned employees, that on many occasions even frivolous proceedings are instituted at the instance of interested persons, sometimes with a specific object of denying the promotion due, and the employee concerned is made to suffer both mental agony and privations which are multiplied when he is also placed under suspension, When, therefore, at the end of such sufferings, he comes out with a clean bill, he has to be restored to all the benefits from which he was kept away unjustly.

25. We are not much impressed by the contentions advanced on behalf of the authorities. The normal rule of "no work no pay" is not applicable to cases such as the present one where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. This is not a case where the employee remains away from work for his own reasons, although the work is offered to him. It is for this reason that F.R. 17(1) will also be inapplicable to such cases."

8. On perusal of record and also the orders passed by this Court in Writ A No. 39146 of 2002, as well as law laid by the Apex Court in case of K.V. Jankiraman (supra), it shows that the earlier orders were contrary and bad and accordingly, the matter was remitted back to the authorities to consider afresh as per the findings given in the said writ petition. That itself clarifies that liberty has given to the authorities only to consider the appointment of the petitioners for approval. Once, the authorities have approved that should be date back to the original appointment or at least earlier consideration of disapproval dated 2.8.2002, but not the date of approval which was 8.11.2013. This Court found that the appointments are subject to selection and the selection was based on the approval granted by the competent authority and undisputedly, the petitioners are in the select list as per their merit and there is no dispute that they are all appointed and continuing in sixth respondent's institution.

9. In the said circumstances, the impugned orders 6.11.2013 restricting the salaries from the date of their joining is set aside and the respondents are directed to release the salaries of the petitioners w.e.f. 2.8.2002 i.e. the date of disapproval of petitioners' selection on a nonexistent ground. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

10. With the abovesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 Noman (Donadi Ramesh, J.) NOMAN AHMAD NOMAN AHMAD NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad