Appellants would not be entitled to their salary on the principle of ‘no work no pay’

In the present case, during the pendency of the writ
petitions, an order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 22 April 2013. It
appears that the Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies, Agra) had
submitted a report dated 30 January 2003 and there was also a report of the
Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, Lucknow dated 15 June 2004. The
Collector and District Magistrate was directed to consider both the reports and
to determine on the basis of the representation submitted by the appellants as
to whether the appellants had been relieved on 17 July 1993. The Collector,
Agra issued a direction on 17 July 2013 in compliance with the interim
direction dated 22 April 2013. The report indicates that the Additional
Collector had submitted a report upon which the Commissioner had submitted his
own report on 15 July 2004. Thereupon, one of the two appellants was heard on 4
October 2004 on which the directions had been issued on 20 January 2005. It was
found therein that
it had been
established that though the appellants had been relieved on 17 July 1993, they
had not taken over the charge of the post to which they were transferred.
Consequently, it was found that for the period
between July 1993 and March 1997, the
appellants would not be entitled to their salary on the principle
of ‘no work no pay’
since they did not
assume charge of the post at the transferred place. Apart from the finding of
the Collector, Agra, the learned Single Judge had before the Court the counter
affidavit which was filed by the State in both the writ petitions. In the counter
affidavit, it was the specific stand of the State that the appellants had been
relieved and that despite the fact that charge had been taken over from them,
they had not assumed charge at the transferred place of postings. For this
purpose, we may advert to the counter affidavit which was filed on behalf of
the State in the writ petition filed by the appellant (Hari Babu Khandelwal)
where it was stated that the appellants had been relieved on 17 July 1993 and
when the relieving memo was served on 9
August 1997, the appellant read the relieving order and returned it back to the
person who served it upon him.
The entire
issue as to whether the appellants would be entitled to their salary for the
period 1993 to 1997 turns upon a factual finding on whether the appellants had
been relieved before the interim order dated 12 August 1993 had been served
upon them.
Both the Collector
and the District Magistrate, Agra and in the exercise of judicial review, the
learned Single Judge have come to the conclusion that the appellants had been
relieved.
The appellants were clerks in a
transferable service and there was no reason or justification, once they had
been relieved, for them not to assume charge at the transferred place of
posting.

Hence,
having assessed the submissions which have been urged on behalf of the
appellants, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single
Judge.

The special appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.

Order
Date :- 8.1.2016

RK

(Yashwant
Varma, J) (Dr D Y Chandrachud, CJ)

 

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: