Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs Milk Unionn Gurdaspur

Present: M r . Rahul Aggarwal, Advocate fo r the appellant. M r . Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, Ad v ocate and M r . Abhishek Masih, Advocate fo r respondent Nos. 1 to 3. -.-

¶12

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J (Oral).

¶13

Th e present appeal is preferred ag a inst the judgment and decree d a ted 21.01.2003 pas s ed by the learned Additional D istrict Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the appeal fil e d by the respondent against the judgment and decree d a ted 12.11.2001 pas s ed by the learned Civil Judge ( J r. Division), Gurdaspur, decre e ing the suit of the a ppellant along with interest @ 9 %, was modified to the extent t hat the appellant would not be entitled to wages fo r the period for which he did not work.

¶14

BRIEF FACTS

¶15

Th e brief facts of the case are that t he appellant was appointed as M ilk Procurement A s sistant by the respondent on 0 2.09.1979. In the year 1983, his designation wa s changed from Milk Procure m ent Assistant to Milk Procure m ent TRIPTI SAINIAssistant Grad e -I and again on 02.02.1987, hi s designation was changed as M ilk 2025.05.08 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

RSA-2747-2003 (O&M) - 2-

¶17

Procurement S u pervisor. In the year 1981, the appellant was transferre d at Gurdaspur in M ilk Union, Gurdaspur. While working with the respondents , he was suspended v ide order dated 11.04.1995 an d charge-sheet was served upon h im on 19.04.1995. Thereafter, he was dismiss e d from service vide order d a ted 30.09.1996. H e filed departmental appeal w h ich was dismissed on 10.04.1 9 97. Then, he filed civil suit before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Gurdaspu r by stating therein that the dismissal order date d 30.09.1996 was passed wit h out following the principles of natural justice. Th e dismissal order dated 30.09.1 9 96 was set aside b y the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Gurdaspur, vide judg m ent and decree dat e d 12.11.2001 and the responde n ts were directed to release all the service benefits alongwith 9% interest and to r e -instate the appellant from the d ate of his suspensi o n.

¶18

Th e respondents filed appeal agai n st the judgment and decree d a ted 12.11.2001, wh i ch was dismissed with modific a tion to the extent that the appel l ant would be entitled to re-instatement with cont i nuity of service but would no t be entitled to wag e s for the period for which he di d not work. 4. He n ce, the present appeal. SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

¶19

Le a rned counsel for the appella n t contends that the learned F irst Appellate Cour t has wrongly modified the jud g ment and decree dated 12.11.2 0 01 of learned Tria l Court by holding that the ap p ellant would not be entitled to the wages for the p e riod for which he did not work. He further contends that once the dismissal order is set aside, the appellant would be entitled to back-wages as well. 6. Pe r contra , learned counsel for re s pondent Nos. 1 to 3 contends t hat TRIPTI SAINIthe learned Fir s t Appellate Court has rightly h e ld that the appellant would no t be 2025.05.08 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

RSA-2747-2003 (O&M) - 3-

¶21

entitled to wag e s for the period he has not wo r ked on the principle of ‘No W ork No Pay’. Ther e fore, he prays that the present a p peal be dismissed.

¶22

I h ave heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the w h ole record of the ca s e. 8. A p erusal of the record shows tha t the appellant was dismissed f r om service on 30.09.1996. He filed departmental appeal against the dismissal o r der dated 30.09.19 9 6, which was dismissed on 10. 0 4.1997. He filed civil suit, w h ich was decreed in h is favour. The appeal filed by the respondents was modified v ide judgment and d ecree dated 21.01.2003 to th e extent that the appellant be reinstated into se r vice with continuity of service but he would not be entitled to the wages for the p e riod for which he did not work. 9. In compliance of judgment and decree dated 21.01.2003, the respondent was re-instated and retired after att a ining the age of superannuatio n in the year 2012.

¶23

Th e substantial questions of la w involved in the present Reg u lar Second Appeal , as per order dated 16.08.200 5 , whereby the present appeal w as admitted by thi s Court are as follows:-

¶24

(a) Whether an employee can be denied the consequential ben e fits an d wages while holding that the o r der of his termination was null and vo i d and inoperative?

¶25

(b) Whether a person whose or d er of termination is set aside ca n be de n ied wages and consequential b e nefits on the principle of ‘no w ork no pay’ even though he is kept o u t of the service due to the wr o ng or d er of the management.?

¶26

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.05.08 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

RSA-2747-2003 (O&M) - 4-

¶28

(c) Whether in view of the settled law that nobody can be allo w ed to t ake benefit of its own wrongs, the management could be gra n ted the benefits even though they wer e at fault in terminating the serv i ces of t he appellant?

¶29

A d mittedly, both the Courts h ave held dismissal order d a ted 30.09.1996 to be illegal and unjustifiable. Furt h er, the respondents did not file any further appeal a gainst the judgment and decr e e dated 21.01.2003 passed by the learned Additi o nal District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents w a s dismissed to the extent of sett i ng aside the dismissal order by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Gurdaspur. O nce the dismissal order is set a s ide and the appella n t is held entitled to re-instate m ent with continuity of service by both the Courts , it would be unjustified to depr i ve him of the wages for that pe r iod i.e. from 30.09.1996 (when he was dismissed f rom service) till 21.01.2003 (w h en he was re-instat e d in service). 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. K.V.Jankiraman [1991(4) SCC 109], held that the rule of ‘no w o rk no pay’ is not applicable to the cases where e mp loyee is willing to work but is kept away by the authorities fo r no fault of his. Rel e vant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

¶30

“2 4 . It was further contended on their behalf that the normal ru l e is "n o work no pay". Hence a pers o n cannot be allowed to draw the be n efits of a post the duties of whi c h he has not discharged. To allow hi m to do so is against the elemen t ary rule that a person is to be p aid on ly for the work he has done an d not for the work he has not d o ne. As against this, it was pointed out on behalf of the concer n ed em p loyees, that on many occasio n s even frivolous proceedings are

¶31

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.05.08 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

RSA-2747-2003 (O&M) - 5-

¶33

instituted at the instance of inte r ested persons, sometimes wit h a sp e cific object of denying the p romotion due, and the empl o yee co n cerned is made to suffer both m ental agony and privations w h ich ar e multiplied when he is also placed under suspension. W h en, th e refore, at the end of such suffer i ngs, he comes out with a clean b ill, he has to be restored to all the be n efits from which he was kept a w ay un j ustly.

¶34

25. We are not much impresse d by the contentions advance d on be h alf of the authorities. The nor m al rule of "no work no pay" is not ap p licable to cases such as the present one where the empl o yee alt h ough he is willing to work is kept away from work by the au t horities for no fault of his. Thi s is not a case where the empl o yee re m ains away from work for his o wn reasons, although the wor k is of fe red to him. It is for this re a son that F.R. 17(1) will also be in ap plicable to such cases. 26. We are, therefore, broadly i n agreement with the finding o f the Tr i bunal that when an employee is completely exonerated mea n ing th e reby that he is not 'found bl a meworthy in the least and is not vis i ted with the penalty even of ce n sure, he has to be given the be n efit of t he salary of the higher post al o ng with the other benefits from the da t e on which he would have normally been promoted but for the dis c iplinary/ criminal proceeding s . However, there may be ca s es' wh e re the proceedings, whether disciplinary or criminal, are, for ex a mple, delayed at the instance of the employee or the clearanc e in th e disciplinary proceedings or a c quittal in the criminal proceed i ngs

¶35

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.05.08 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

RSA-2747-2003 (O&M) - 6-

¶37

is w ith benefit of doubt or on acc o unt of non-availability of evid e nce du e to the acts attributable to the employee etc. In s u ch cir c umstances, the concerned au t horities must be vested with the po w er to decide whether the empl o yee at all deserves any salary for th e intervening period and if he d o es, the extent to which he dese r ves it. L ife being complex, it is not p o ssible to anticipate and enume r ate ex h austively all the circumstance s under which such considera t ion ma y become necessary. To ignore however, such circumstances w h en th ey exist and lay down' an inflexi b le rule that in every case whe n an em p loyee is exonerated in dis c iplinary/criminal proceedings he sh o uld be entitled to all salary for the intervening period i s to un d ermine discipline in the ad m inistration and jeopardise pu b lic int e rests.”

¶38

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the c ase of Shobha Ram Raturi Vs. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Others [2016 (16) SCC 663] h eld

¶39

as under:-

¶40

“ 3. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the controve r sy, we are satisfied, that after the i m pugned order of retirement d a ted 31.12.2002 was set aside, the appellant was entitled to all co n sequential benefits. The fault lies with the respondents in not ha v ing utilised the services of t h e appellant for the period f r om 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005. Had the a ppellant been allowed to conti n ue in service, he would have read i ly discharged his duties. Ha v ing restrained him from rendering his services with effect from 1.1.2 0 03 to 31.12.2005, the respondent cannot be allowed to press the self

¶41

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.05.08 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

RSA-2747-2003 (O&M) - 7-

¶43

se r ving plea of denying him wage s for the period in question, on the pl e a of the principle of “no work n o pay”.

¶44

4. For the reasons recorded he r einabove, we are satisfied, that the im p ugned order passed by the H i gh Court, to the limited exten d of de n ying wages to the appellant, for the period from 1.1.200 3 to 31.12.2005 deserves to be set asi d e. The same is accordingly he r eby set aside.

¶45

5. The appellant shall be paid wages for the above period wi t hin thr e e months from today. His retri a l benefits, if necessary, shall be reca l culated on the basis thereof, a n d shall be released to him with i n a further period of three months .

¶46

14 In view of the above referred t o law laid down by the Hon ’ ble Supreme Court , the substantial questions of l a w as referred to in para-9 of t his judgment are a nswered in favour of the app e llant and against the respondents. Since the dismi s sal order is set aside by both t h e Courts, therefore, the appella n t is held entitled to wages along with interest @ 9 % for the period from 30.09.199 6 to 21.01.2003.

¶47

Th e present appeal pertains t o the year 2003, therefore, the respondents we r e directed to produce the servi c e/salary record of the appellant and the calculation a long with 9% interest of wage s for the period from 30.09.199 6 to 21.01.2003.

¶48

Th i s Court appreciate the effor t s made by Mr. Bikramjit Si n gh Patwalia, Advo c ate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 w ho produced before this Court the salary record f r om the year 1996 till 2003 a n d the calculation of salary for the TRIPTI SAINIperiod from 30.09.1996 to 21.01.2003 along w ith interest @ 9%. As per sa l ary 2025.05.08 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶49

RSA-2747-2003 (O&M) - 8-

¶50

record, the cal c ulation comes to be Rs.10,43 , 451/-. The same calculation w as shared with the learned counsel for the appella n t, who stated it to be correct, as per his salary recor d .

¶51

In v iew of the above, the present a p peal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 2 1.01.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Ju d ge, Gurdaspur, to t he extent of denying wages a long with interest @ 9% to the appellant, for t h e period from 30.09.1996 to 21.01.2003 is set aside and judg m ent and decree dat e d 12.11.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divisi o n), Gurdaspur is u p held.

¶52

Si n ce, the present appeal pertains to the year 2003 and is decide d in the year 2025 i.e. after 22 years, therefore, t o avoid further harassment to the appellant by way of filing the execution applica t ion, the respondents are directe d to deposit Rs.10,4 3 ,451/- as per calculations sub m itted by them before this Cou r t in the account of t h e appellant within a period of t w o months from the date of pas s ing of this judgme n t. Further, the appellant is di r ected to provide his bank acc o unt details to the re s pondents.

¶53

De c ree-sheet be drawn.

¶54

Pe n ding applications, if any, also s t and disposed of.

¶55

May 02, 2025 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) tripti JUDGE

¶56

W h ether speaking/non-speaking : Speak i ng W h ether reportable : Yes

¶57

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.05.08 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Milk Unionn Gurdaspur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Milk Unionn Gurdaspur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karamjit Dhaliwal Alias Karamjit Singh Alias Karam Alias Kamal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Harinder Pal Singh Vs State of Haryana and Another

Jasbir Kaur Vs Pb.Water Supply & Sewerage

Om Parkash Vs the Secretary to the Govt. of Haryana

Yash Pal Bhalla Vs Governng Body Gmn College & Anr.

Nirmal Kumar Vs Sudesh Kumar and Others