Allowed

Nageshwar Bhagat v. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Director General Cum Inspector General Of Police And Ors.

Jharkhand HC24 Feb 2022WPC/4670/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Ranchi, held that a petitioner entitled for service benefits after quashing of dismissal order, rejecting 'no work no pay'. Due to case age, court directed payment of 25% back wages for 2001 to 2015.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be paid 25% back wages for period from 16.02.2001 to 08.05.2015.

Nageshwar Bhagat Vs The State Of Jharkhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S). No. 4670 of 2016

¶3

¶4

Nageshwar Bhagat ……… Petitioner .

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand, through the Director General-cumInspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶7

Deputy Inspector General of Police, Headquarter, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶8

Deputy Inspector General of Police, Koyla Range, Bokaro. 4. Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad

¶9

………. Respondents .

¶10

¶11

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK (Through: Video Conferencing)

¶12

----------For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate For the State : Mr. O.P. Tiwari, GP-III ----------

¶13

08/ 24.02.2022 Heard the parties.

¶14

2. At the very outset, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confines his prayer to the issue whether after quashment of order of dismissal, petitioner is entitled for back wages or not.

¶15

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vociferously argues that since the order of dismissal has already been quashed and set aside by this Court vide its order dated 25.10.2013, passed in W.P.(S). No. 3728 of 2006, the petitioner is entitled for back wages though not fully but to some extent. It has been further argued that ratio of ‘No Work No Pay’ is not applicable in the instant case since the petitioner has not wilfully abstained himself from the work rather, as he was dismissed from the service he was not allowed to work by the respondent-authorities. Learned counsel further submits that during the period of dismissal, the petitioner was not gainfully employed. However, as the order of dismissal has now been quashed and set aside, the ratio of ‘No Work No Pay’ is not available to the respondent-authorities. Placing reliance upon the plethora of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court and that of this Court in case of the Tin Plate Company of India Ltd. Vs. T.V. Raju (W.P.L. No. 5251 of 2014, disposed of on 23.09.2020), learned

¶16

¶17

counsel submits that the matter may be remitted back to the respondentauthorities for payment of back wages by taking a decision as to whether petitioner is entitled for back wages or not.

¶18

4. On the other hand, Mr. O.P. Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that petitioner is not entitled for any back wages and rightly, the stand has been taken by the respondent-State that as petitioner has not worked for the period he was out of service, he is not entitled for any service benefit of that period.

¶19

5. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is of the view that case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, the petitioner was out of service during the period of dismissal but as the order of dismissal has already been quashed and set aside, the petitioner is entitled for the service benefits of that period and denial of back wages would amount to indirectly punishing the petitioner. The Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments has held that as and when the order of termination is set aside, the workman is entitled for back-wages but as far as quantum is concerned, it depends upon the judicial discretion taking into consideration the nature of charges against the employee and the pleadings based on the evidence regarding gainful employment.

¶20

6. However, since the matter is very old and petitioner was dismissed in the year 2001, instead of remitting the matter back to the respondentauthorities, I hereby direct to pay 25% of the back wages for the period from 16.02.2001 to 08.05.2015 to the petitioner, if there is no other legal impediments.

¶21

7. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶22

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)

¶23

kunal/-

Nageshwar Bhagat v. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Director General Cum Inspector General Of Police And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nageshwar Bhagat v. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Director General Cum Inspector General Of Police And Ors.

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

Radha Krishna Pathak Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Dr Ashutosh Kumar Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Department of Higher and Technical Education

Ashok Kumar Purbey Vs Education

Din Bandhu Pathak Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary School Education and Literacy Deptt

Manidhar Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary School Education and Literacy Deptt

Bharti Devi Vs the Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director