Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 11325 of 2011, Judgment Date: Dec 09, 2015

 Having given our thoughtful consideration  to  the  controversy,
we are  satisfied,  that  after  the  impugned  order  of  retirement  dated
31.12.2002 was set aside, the appellant was entitled  to  all  consequential
benefits.  The fault lies with the respondents in not  having  utilised  the
services of the appellant for the period from 1.1.2003 to  31.12.2005.   Had
the appellant been allowed to continue in service,  he  would  have  readily
discharged his duties.  Having restrained him from  rendering  his  services
with effect from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005, the respondent  cannot  be  allowed
to press the self serving plea of  denying  him  wages  for  the  period  in
question, on the plea of the principle of “no work no pay”.

                 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11325 OF 2011

Shobha Ram Raturi                                                ..Appellant

                       versus

Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and others               ..Respondents

                            O R D E R


            It is not a matter of dispute, that the  appellant  was  retired
from service on 31.12.2002, even though  he  would  have,  in  the  ordinary
course,  attained  his  date  of  retirement  on  superannuation,  only   on
31.12.2005.  The appellant  assailed  the  order  of  his  retirement  dated
31.12.2002 by filing writ petition no. 751 of 2003.  The  same  was  allowed
by a learned  Single  Judge  of  the  Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court,  on
14.09.2010.  The operative part of the order is extracted hereunder:
“Accordingly the present writ petition is allowed;  order  dated  31.12.2002
(Annexure P-4) is  quashed.  The  petitioner  would  be  treated  to  be  in
continuous service with all consequential benefits. However it is  clarified
that since the petitioner has not worked on the post maxim of “no  work,  no
pay” shall apply and the consequential benefits  shall  only  be  determined
towards terminal benefits.  However there will be no order as to costs.”


            The denial of back wages to the  appellant  by  the  High  Court
vide its order dated 14.09.2010 was assailed  by  the  appellant  by  filing
Letters Patent Appeal No. 489 of 2011.  The High Court  rejected  the  claim
of the appellant, while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal  on  26.5.2011.
The orders dated 14.09.2010 and 26.5.2011 passed by the High  Court  limited
to the issue of payment of back  wages,  are  subject  matter  of  challenge
before this Court.
            Having given our thoughtful consideration  to  the  controversy,
we are  satisfied,  that  after  the  impugned  order  of  retirement  dated
31.12.2002 was set aside, the appellant was entitled  to  all  consequential
benefits.  The fault lies with the respondents in not  having  utilised  the
services of the appellant for the period from 1.1.2003 to  31.12.2005.   Had
the appellant been allowed to continue in service,  he  would  have  readily
discharged his duties.  Having restrained him from  rendering  his  services
with effect from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005, the respondent  cannot  be  allowed
to press the self serving plea of  denying  him  wages  for  the  period  in
question, on the plea of the principle of “no work no pay”.
            For the reasons recorded hereinabove,  we  are  satisfied,  that
the impugned order passed by the  High  Court,  to  the  limited  extend  of
denying wages to the appellant, for the period from 1.1.2003  to  31.12.2005
deserves to be set aside. The same is accordingly hereby set aside.
            The appellant shall be paid wages for the  above  period  within
three months from today.  His retiral benefits, if necessary, shall  be  re-
calculated on the basis thereof, and shall  be  released  to  him  within  a
further period of three months.
            The instant appeal is allowed in the above terms.

                                                       …....................J.
                                                       [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]

NEW DELHI;                                             …....................J.
DECEMBER 09, 2015.                                     [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]
ITEM NO.116               COURT NO.3               SECTION IV

               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal  No(s).  11325/2011

SHOBHA RAM RATURI                                  Appellant(s)

                                VERSUS

HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.& ORS            Respondent(s)


Date : 09/12/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN


For Appellant(s) Ms. V.S. Lakshmi, Adv.
                    for Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,AOR

For Respondent(s)      Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen,Adv.

          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                             O R D E R

            The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.


(Renuka Sadana)                        (Parveen Kr. Chawla)
 Court Master                                     AR-cum-PS
            [signed order is placed on the file]