STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. MANGILAL SHARMA
LAWS(SC)-1997-12-101
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADHYA PRADESH)
Decided on
December 18,1997
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appellant
VERSUS
MANGILAL SHARMA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
KOSHAN LAL TANDON KUNJ BEHARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [RELIED ON]PARKASH CHAND KHURANA VS. HARNAM SINGH [APPROVED CONDITIONALLY]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. KRISHAN DAYAL SHARMA [RELIED ON]
Cited Judgements :-
AKHILA BHARATHA BILLAVARA UNION KUDROLI VS. SHAKUNTHALA [LAWS(KAR)-2006-2-25] [REFERRED TO]CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA VS. VIKRAM SINGH RANA [LAWS(MPH)-2007-3-93] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDERA SANTILAL SHAH VS. ZENAL CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2009-1-192] [REFERRED TO]
DILESHBHAI GAMANBHAI PATEL AND ORS VS. MEHUL GAMANBHAI PATEL AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2014-3-177] [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. PATEL BHAGWANBHAI CHATURDAS [LAWS(GJH)-2010-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. PATEL BHAGWANBHAI CHATURDAS [LAWS(GJH)-2010-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
VENKATARAJA VS. VIDYANE DOURERADJAPERUMAL (D) THR.LRS. [LAWS(SC)-2013-4-49] [REFERRED TO]
SELVARAJ P VS. M D KATTABOMMAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(MAD)-1998-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER VS. GURMEJ SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2006-1-198] [REFERRED]
NAMETA K. BOMB VS. UDAIPUR MAHILA SAMRIDHI URBAN CO-OP. BANK LTD. [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-2-99] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS. A. VASANTHAKUMAR [LAWS(KER)-2015-3-244] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDER GOPAL VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2007-3-22] [REFERRED TO]
KALIGOTLA VENKATA SIVARAMA KRISHNA VS. KALIGOTLA SEETA MAHALAKSHMI [LAWS(APH)-1998-7-33] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. POOJA VS. VIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2016-8-54] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN EARTH MOVERS PVT LTD VS. GUJARAT TRACTORS CORP LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2008-10-99] [REFERRED TO]
RASIKA VS. MOUNT MARY VAIKUNTA CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2002-12-43] [REFERRED TO]
RISHI RAJ CHAUHAN AND ORS. VS. ARUN SHARMA [LAWS(P&H)-2015-2-87] [REFERRED TO]
VENKATARAJA VS. VIDYANE DOURERADJAPERUMAL [LAWS(SC)-2013-4-104] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS. M/S. MS SHOES (EAST) LTD. & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-6-72] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. SURAJBAI [LAWS(MPH)-2010-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, INDORE & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-2-589] [REFERRED TO]
VIBHUTI (NOW DECEASED) AND ANOTHER VS. JAYANTRI (NOW DECEASED) AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2011-11-315] [REFERRED TO]
INDIABULLS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD VS. CHANDRADEEP SINGH BHURJI [LAWS(DLH)-2016-7-333] [REFERRED]
POST MASTER CHIRALA HEAD POST OFFICE CHIRALA VS. VOLETI SATYA PANIVARDHINI [LAWS(APH)-2006-2-41] [REFERRED TO]
POST MASTER CHIRALAHEAD POST OFFICER VS. VOLETY SATYA PANIVARDHINI [LAWS(APH)-2006-2-78] [FOLLOWED ON]
BHAWANI SHANKAR VS. MAHARASHTRA SHISHAN PRASARK MANDAL [LAWS(MPH)-2013-8-198] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI GOURI GANESH SHRI BALAJI CONSTRUCTIONS VS. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD [LAWS(MPH)-2018-5-164] [REFERRED TO]
SALIM KHAN VS. SMT. JUBAIDA BEGUM & ANR. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-10-127] [REFERRED TO]
KAHANDAS BHIMDAS DASANI VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(GJH)-2013-10-228] [REFERRED TO]
JAGRUTIBEN VS. NAYANABEN GORDHANBHAI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2011-2-227] [REFERRED TO]
K.K.KHOSLA VS. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE XIV LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-2013-2-29] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR ATRI VS. RAGHUVEER SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-10-72] [REFERRED TO]
B.S. SODHI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2003-3-107] [REFERRED]
RAJAGOPAL VS. PERUMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2007-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDA & SIDDA, NEW DELHI VS. JANAK RAJ AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2008-9-257] [REFERRED]
MOHAN DOME VS. EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2001-4-10] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI SANEI VS. RAJESH SANEI [LAWS(CAL)-2024-2-200] [REFERRED TO]
GHULAM RASOOL VS. SHARIEF [LAWS(J&K)-2019-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
SAMARJIT DATTA VS. PMT MACHINE TOLLS AUTOMATICS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2001-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
INDIA NAVIGATION CO GURGAON VS. HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [LAWS(P&H)-2005-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
SAJITHABAI VS. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY [LAWS(KER)-2024-3-199] [REFERRED TO]
SWAMI MUKTHANANDA VS. SRI RAMAKRISHNA THAPOVANAM [LAWS(MAD)-2007-6-422] [REFERRED TO]
UDAYA SAHKARI GRIH NIRMAN SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT VS. HATHIYARIN BAI [LAWS(CHH)-2023-4-73] [REFERRED TO]
SIVARAMA KRISHNA K V VS. K SEETA MAHALAKSHMI [LAWS(APH)-1998-7-109] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH C VAISH VS. BANWARILAL JAIPURIA [LAWS(CAL)-1999-4-31] [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDA DHARA VS. RAMKRISHNA BERA [LAWS(CAL)-2000-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
SHAHJAHA VS. NAUSHAD AHMAD [LAWS(CHH)-2019-1-109] [REFERRED TO]
SHAHJAHA VS. NOORJAHA [LAWS(CHH)-2019-1-299] [REFERRED TO]
KEWAL KRISHNA KHOSLA VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE XIVTH [LAWS(ALL)-2013-2-222] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF J&K VS. GH MOHD KHUROO [LAWS(J&K)-2004-5-27] [REFERRED TO]
ICICI BANK LTD VS. VINOD GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-1-183] [REFERRED TO]
PARKASH CHAND SIIARMA (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS L.RS.SMT.SUDERSHAN SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(HPH)-1998-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
MAN SINGH VS. AMAR DAS [LAWS(HPH)-2001-4-17] [REFERRED TO]
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKKANAD VS. FR.THOMAS PAUL RAMBAN [LAWS(KER)-2020-3-269] [REFERRED TO]
HARSH VARDHAN LODHA VS. NAWAL KISHORE KEJRIWAL [LAWS(CAL)-2012-12-36] [REFERRED TO]
PEMULA VIJAYARATHNAM VS. BOYAPATI SING RAO [LAWS(APH)-2007-9-88] [REFERRED TO]
REKHA MISHRA VS. SHIV PRASAD SRIVASTAVA [LAWS(ALL)-2014-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHANDRA JARODIA VS. VIJAYINDER KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2025-3-19] [REFERRED TO]
TORAN SINGH VS. IMRAT SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2012-5-99] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. JAI CHAND RAI JAIN [LAWS(P&H)-2005-5-164] [REFERRED]
FIRM RAJASTHAN UDYOG VS. HINDUSTAN ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2020-4-46] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
D. P. Wadhwa, J. -
(1.)State of Madhya Pradesh has come in appeal against the judgment dated April 29, 1988 of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing its writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The writ petition had been filed challenging the order of the Civil Judge, Neemuch executing a declaratory decree and that of the Additional District Judge, Mandsore upholding in revision the order of the Civil Judge. This Court while granting special leave petition had stayed the operation of the impugned order of the High Court as well as that of the Executing Court.
(2.)The respondent was employed as a Clerk Grade I in the Irrigation Department of the appellant and was posted at Gandhi Sagar. He was transferred to Jabalpur. He handed over his charge at Gandhi Sagar. Respondent represented that due to acute illness of his father he might be transferred to Mandsore, a place near his home town to enable him to look after his father. His request was not acceded to. This led the respondent to submit his resignation. He was not informed if the resignation had been accepted. There was some correspondence in late sixties but there was no clear reply from the appellant if resignation of the respondent had been accepted. All this period the respondent did not join his duty and remained present at his home town. This led the appellant to assume that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from his service as he continuously remained absent from his place of taking over the charge of his post for more than five years. Thus, according to the appellant the services of the respondent stood terminated. The respondent sometime in 1979 filed a suit for declaration against the appellant that he continued to be in service which was decreed on October 1, 1982 by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Neemuch. The decree passed in favour of the respondent is as under:-
"It is ordered and decreed that - (a) Plaintiff's suit is decreed with costs and this is declared that plaintiff is still in continuance service of defendant and his services are not terminated. Defendant will also bear the cost of the suit of the plaintiff along with its own cost and that the sum of Rs. 63.50 be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff on account of costs of this suit with interest thereon at the rate of (illegible) percent per annum from this date to date of realization.
Given under my hand and the seal of Court this 1st day of October, 1982.
Sd/-
A. H. Sheikh Patel
Civil Judge-Class II
Neemuch - (M.P.)"
(3.)Against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge the appellant filed an appeal before the District Judge, Mandsore which was dismissed and the second appeal in the High Court was also dismissed by the judgment dated April 26, 1986. The respondent, decree-holder; then filed an execution application in the Court of the Civil Judge, Neemuch. This was to the effect that the respondent be awarded all the consequential benefits, salary, dearness allownaces, promotion etc. of the service and also cost of the application. The appellant opposed the application on the grounds that the Court did not pass any decree of reinstatement of the decree holder on the post or for payment of any salary to him and that in the suit the decree holder had not prayed for reinstatement and for arrears of his salary. It was also submitted before the executing Court by the appellant that since the decree holder had remained absent from his duty, he was not entitled to any salary on the basis of the principle of "no work no salary". The objections filed by the appellant, it would appear, were dismissed by the executing Court. A revision against that order was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Neemuch by order dated January 11, 1988. The appellant then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which, as noted above, was dismissed. This led the appellant to come to this Court.
(2.)The respondent was employed as a Clerk Grade I in the Irrigation Department of the appellant and was posted at Gandhi Sagar. He was transferred to Jabalpur. He handed over his charge at Gandhi Sagar. Respondent represented that due to acute illness of his father he might be transferred to Mandsore, a place near his home town to enable him to look after his father. His request was not acceded to. This led the respondent to submit his resignation. He was not informed if the resignation had been accepted. There was some correspondence in late sixties but there was no clear reply from the appellant if resignation of the respondent had been accepted. All this period the respondent did not join his duty and remained present at his home town. This led the appellant to assume that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from his service as he continuously remained absent from his place of taking over the charge of his post for more than five years. Thus, according to the appellant the services of the respondent stood terminated. The respondent sometime in 1979 filed a suit for declaration against the appellant that he continued to be in service which was decreed on October 1, 1982 by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Neemuch. The decree passed in favour of the respondent is as under:-
"It is ordered and decreed that - (a) Plaintiff's suit is decreed with costs and this is declared that plaintiff is still in continuance service of defendant and his services are not terminated. Defendant will also bear the cost of the suit of the plaintiff along with its own cost and that the sum of Rs. 63.50 be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff on account of costs of this suit with interest thereon at the rate of (illegible) percent per annum from this date to date of realization.
Given under my hand and the seal of Court this 1st day of October, 1982.
Sd/-
A. H. Sheikh Patel
Civil Judge-Class II
Neemuch - (M.P.)"
(3.)Against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge the appellant filed an appeal before the District Judge, Mandsore which was dismissed and the second appeal in the High Court was also dismissed by the judgment dated April 26, 1986. The respondent, decree-holder; then filed an execution application in the Court of the Civil Judge, Neemuch. This was to the effect that the respondent be awarded all the consequential benefits, salary, dearness allownaces, promotion etc. of the service and also cost of the application. The appellant opposed the application on the grounds that the Court did not pass any decree of reinstatement of the decree holder on the post or for payment of any salary to him and that in the suit the decree holder had not prayed for reinstatement and for arrears of his salary. It was also submitted before the executing Court by the appellant that since the decree holder had remained absent from his duty, he was not entitled to any salary on the basis of the principle of "no work no salary". The objections filed by the appellant, it would appear, were dismissed by the executing Court. A revision against that order was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Neemuch by order dated January 11, 1988. The appellant then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which, as noted above, was dismissed. This led the appellant to come to this Court.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.