Allowed

Sanjay Kumar v. Coal India Limited And Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jul 2024WPS/983/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition by a SECL employee reinstated after acquittal in a corruption case challenged the denial of back wages and consequential benefits. The Court, relying on Fundamental Rule 54(2), held that full exoneration entitles the employee to full pay and allowances, overriding the 'No Work No Pay' principle. The impugned order denying benefits was quashed, and the petitioner was directed to be

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed. Impugned order dated 22/24.05.2013 quashed. Respondents directed to consider petitioner's claim for arrears of salary for 12.01.2006 to 22.12.2011 and grant consequential benefi

Sanjay Kumar Vs Coal India Limited And… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(S) No. 983 of 2014

¶4

Sanjay Kumar, aged about 43 years, S/o Shri Bhola Prasad, Working as Assistant Manager (Personnel), South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Korba Area, Presently residing at Qr. No. C-1, Hospital Colony, SECL, Korba Area, P.O. & District Korba, (Chhattisgarh), P.S. Korba, PIN - 495677

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Coal India Limited, through its Chairman – cum – Managing Director, 10- Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Road, Kolkata, West Bengal

¶8

Chairman – cum – Managing Director, South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶9

---- Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Aditya Pandey, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate

¶11

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶12

16.07.2024

¶13

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶14

“ 10.(i) To quash the order dated 6/8-12-2011 (Annexure P/7) passed by the respondent no. 1 and also the resolution contained therein dated 12.11.2011 by issuing a writ in the nature of Certiorary .

¶15

10.(ii) To quash the letter dated 22/24-5-2013 (Annexure P/11) by issuing a writ in the nature of Certiorary .

¶16

10.(iii) To direct respondent nos. 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner for promotion to E-6 Grade.

¶17

10.(iv) To direct the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner over and above his junior in the E-6 Grade.

¶18

10.(v) To direct the respondents to give continuity in service to the petitioner during the period from 12.1.2006 to 22.12.2011 in service.

¶19

10.(vi) To direct the respondents to pay the petitioner the entire back wages for the period 12.1.2006 to 22.12.2011 with interest thereon in

¶20

¶21

accordance with law.

¶22

10.(vii) Any other order/writ/direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed.

¶23

10.(viii) Cost of petition be also awarded.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Welfare Officer (Trainee) on 16.07.1997 and posted at Sohagpur Area of SECL. In the year 2002, while he was working in the post of Personnel Officer, he was falsely implicated in a criminal case for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Special Case No. 4/2003 was registered against him by the CBI before the Special Judge (CBI), Jabalpur. He further submitted that vide judgment dated 04.07.2005, the petitioner was convicted by the Court of Special Judge (CBI), Jabalpur. Later on, Criminal Appeal No. 1397/2005 was preferred by the petitioner and the same was allowed and the petitioner was acquitted. He also submitted that it would reflect from the judgment of the acquittal that the petitioner was acquitted honourably and it is also held by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case. He further contended that during the pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner was removed from services and later on, he made representations and reminders dated 27.08.2012, 18.02.2013 and 16.05.2013 along with a copy of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1397/2005 claiming therein continuity of service, arrears of salary for the period during which the petitioner remained idle, promotion, leave encashment, CMT benefits etc. He also contended that respondent No. 1 vide order dated 6/8.12.2011 reinstated the petitioner in the

¶25

¶26

service, but the back wages and arrears of salary have been denied on the ground that the petitioner remained absent from the services and other claims made by the petitioner were not considered. He further argued that the action of respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to well-settled principles of the law. He also argued that the order passed by the authority dated 6/8.12.2011 cannot be reviewed by the authority according to the letter dated 22/24.05.2013, there is no provision under CDA Rules for further review of the matter which has already been decided by the appellate authority and thus, the order dated 22/24.05.2013 (Annexure P/11) is also illegal and liable to be quashed. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate bench of this Court in the matter of Shankar Lal Soni (died) through LR’s Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Secretary and Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Chh 2722 .

¶27

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would oppose. He submitted that the petitioner was convicted by the Special Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He further submitted that the petitioner was acquitted in Criminal Appeal No. 1397/2005, but the judgment of acquittal cannot be treated as an honourable acquittal in the absence of any such finding. He also submitted that the representation was considered by the authorities and the petitioner has already been reinstated. The petitioner did not work for a considerable period; therefore, back wages/arrears of salary have not been given to him. He stated that the petition deserves to be

¶28

¶29

dismissed.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶31

Admittedly, the petitioner was tried for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and later on, he was acquitted by the High Court Madhya Pradesh vide judgment dated 08.11.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1397/2005. From a perusal of the judgment, it is apparent that the petitioner was acquitted without any stigma as allegations made against him were found false and fabricated. The petitioner made representations before the Coal India Limited/respondent No. 1 for grant of arrears of salary, continuity of service and consequential benefits, but the authorities concerned vide order dated 6/8.12.2011 reinstated the petitioner in the service and denied back wages on account of absence from duty.

¶32

In the matter of Shankar Lal Soni (died) (supra), the Coordinate bench while dealing with the Fundamental Rule 54 (2) in paras- 30 to 37 held as under:-

¶33

“ 30. The Fundamental Rules specially sub-rule (2) of Rule 54 clearly entities the Government servant for full pay and allowances in case of full exoneration, then question would be whether the State Government is justified in denying full pay and allowances to the petitioner invoking the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ for the period 1.11.1994 to 31.1.2003?

¶34

31. The principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ is based upon a fundamental concept in a Law of Contact of Employment namely wages and salary are paid by the employer in consideration of work/service rendered by the employee. ‘No Work No Pay’ principle has been laid down keeping in view public interest that a Government servant who does not

¶35

¶36

discharge his duty is not allowed pay and arrears at the cost of public exhequer. (See Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Brijmohan Kaur, (2007)11 SCC 488 ).

¶37

32. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Bihar v. Kripa Nand Singh, (2014) 14 SCC 375 ) has observed that ‘No Work No Pay’ is the rule and ‘No Work Yet Pay’ is the exception. It was pointed out that exception would apply only when employee is compelled (compulsory waiting period) not to attend his duty without any violation or without any fault on his part.

¶38

33. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Madhav Prasad Sahrma, (2011) 2 SCC 212 has held that principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ cannot be applied as a rule of thumb. Full back wages in certain circumstances may be justified particularly when promotion is wrongly denied.

¶39

34. Similarly, in the matter of Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah, (2007) 7 SCC 689 the Supreme Court has reiterated that principles of ‘No Work No Pay’ is not absolute in a given case, if it is that the person was willing to work but he was illegally and unlawfully not allowed to do so, the Court may in the circumstances, direct the authority to grant him all benefits considering “as if he had worked”.

¶40

35. In the considered opinion of this Court, the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ would not be applicable where the rule expressly direct otherwise like sub-rule (2) of Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules, which clearly provides that the Government servant who had been dismissed, removed or compulsory retired has been fully exonerated, shall be paid full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired, but subject to proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 54 and if the termination of the proceedings instituted against the Government servant had been delayed due to reasons directly attributable to the Government servant, but in that case also, the amount determined under proviso to sub-rule (2) shall not be less than the subsistence allowance and other allowances admissible under Rule 53, as such, when the rule expressly provides for grant of full pay and allowance on full exoneration of the Government servant from punishment/criminal charges, the principle of ‘No Work Pay No Pay’ would have no application and said principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ would not override subrule (2) of Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules which provides full pay and allowances on full exoneration.

¶41

36. Coming to the facts of the instant case in light of aforesaid legal analysis, though the original

¶42

¶43

petitioner has been honourably acquitted from criminal charges by this Court and it has been clearly stated by this Court while acquitting the petitioner that he is an honest officer, he is innocent and he has been trapped in criminal case by deceitful means, as such, it is also established that he was honourably acquitted from criminal cases levelled against him and that amounts to “fully exoneration” within the meaning of sub-rule (2) of Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules and therefore, by virtue of said Rules, the petitioner is entitled for full pay and allowances from 1.11.1994 to 31.1.2003 as the authority competent to order reinstatement did not say that the petitioner was responsible for delay in termination of the proceedings, as such, proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules would not be applicable, on the other hand, the authority competent to direct re-instatement while considering under sub-rule (1) of the Rule 54 held that on account of principle of ‘No Work No Pay he is not entitled for full pay and allownaces from 1.4.1994 to 31.1.2003, which the authority could not have directed in view of mandatory provisions contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules. Two options were available to the authority competent to direct re-instatement on the petitioner’s full exoneration from criminal charges either firstly to pay full pay and allowances in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 54 or secondly in case according to him proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 54 is applicable, then he would be entitled for amount not less than the subsistence allowance and other allowances admissible under Rule 53 and no third option of invoking principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ was available to the authority competent to direct reinstatement to the petitioner in teeth of sub-rule (2) of Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules, as such, the State Government is absolutely unjustified in holding that the petitioner is not entitled for pay and allowances from 1.11.1994 to 31.1.2003 on the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’, which is absolutely without jurisdiction and without authority of law and it is held that the petitioner is entitled for full pay and allowances as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 54 as it is not the case of the State Government that he was responsible for any delay in which proviso to subrule (2) of Rule 54 can be applied.

¶44

37. Consequently, the impugned order dated 3.11.2010 is hereby set-aside. The State Government is directed to grant full pay and allowances to legal representative of the petitioner i.e. from 1.11.1994 to 31.1.2003 along with 9% interest from the date of entitlement till the date of payment within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Legal representative of the writ petitioner will also be entitled for cost quantified Rs.10,000/-.”

¶45

¶46

Taking into consideration the provisions of Fundamental Rule 54 (2); the judgment passed by the Coordinate bench of this Court in the matter of Shankar Lal Soni (died) (supra) ; and, the facts of the present case, in the opinion of this Court, the decision taken by the respondent authorities dated 22/24.05.2013 is liable to be and is hereby quashed. However, so far as the order dated 6/8.12.2011 passed by respondent No. 1 is concerned, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for arrears of salary for the period from 12.01.2006 to 22.12.2011 during which the petitioner remained absent from services and the respondent authorities are also directed to grant other consequential benefits.

¶47

Consequently, this petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶48

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶49

vatti

Sanjay Kumar v. Coal India Limited And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar v. Coal India Limited And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyama Charan Banjare Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Sethua and Ors. Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Mohit Kumar Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Lakhan Lal Sahu And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Nandlal Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

R.p.sonkar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.