- (1.) These special appeals arise from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17 September 2015 dismissing two writ petitions filed by the appellants separately for the payment of salary between 17 July 1993 until 28 March 1997.
(2.) The appellants were employed as clerks in the office of the District Supply Officer, Agra. The State Government issued a notification on 8 June 1993 by which a scheme was formulated for accommodating surplus staff. On 17 July 1993, the appellants were transferred from Agra to Mainpuri. The Government Order dated 8 June 1993 had envisaged that in the district of Agra, 43 employees would be retained on the basis of seniority in the Food and Civil Supplies Department while others, who were junior, would be adjusted in the neighbouring districts. The appellants challenged the order of transfer by filing writ petitions1 under Article 226 of the Constitution. By an interim order dated 12 August 1993 in both the writ petitions, a learned Single Judge while issuing notice directed that in case the order dated 17 July 1993 has not been implemented, its operation shall remain stayed for a period of three months. The interim order was extended until further orders on 22 November 1993. Eventually, both the writ petitions were disposed of by a judgment and order dated 1 October 1996. The learned Single Judge noted the submissions of the appellants that they had wrongly been shown in the seniority list below serial no. 42 (the first 42 employees having been retained in Agra). The learned Single Judge while disposing of the petitions allowed the appellants to submit a representation for the fixation of their seniority. The State was directed to consider as to whether the appellants fell within the surplus staff. The judgment envisaged three situations. Firstly, if the appellants were not surplus upon fixation of their seniority, they would not be transferred on the ground which weighed in the notification dated 8 June 1993. Secondly, even if they were not surplus, the State would be at liberty to transfer the appellants in future on grounds other than the ground that they had been found to be a part of the surplus staff. Thirdly, in the event that it was concluded that the seniority was correctly fixed and that the appellants were amongst the surplus staff, the State would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders. This determination of seniority was directed to be made within a period of three months and the petitions were disposed of. Eventually, on 28 March 1997, orders were passed by which the appellants were transferred back from Mainpuri to Agra.
(3.) In the writ petitions which were filed by the appellants, the relief that was sought was, for the payment of arrears of salary from 17 July 1993 until date and for consequential reliefs. Eventually, and it is not in dispute during the course of the hearing of the special appeals, the issue which survived was in regard to the entitlement of the appellants to the payment of salary for the period from 17 July 1993 (the date on which they were transferred from Agra to Mainpuri) until 28 March 1997. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions seeking the payment of salary on the ground that though the contention of the appellants was that they were never relieved in terms of the order of transfer dated 17 July 1993, the fact remained that the charge of the post had been taken from them and the interim order of the High Court was passed only on 12 August 1993. The learned Single Judge held that there is nothing on the record to show that the appellants had ever joined at Mainpuri and the admitted case of the appellants is that they continued to remain at Agra and approached the department for signing the attendance register but were not permitted to sign it. In the view of the learned Single Judge, if the appellants had not worked during the period from 18 July 1993 to 23 January 1997, they could not be allowed salary on the principle of 'no work no pay'. The High Court by its interim order dated 12 August 1993 had issued a conditional order to the effect that the operation of the order of transfer shall remain stayed only if it had not already been implemented. In the view of the learned Single Judge, since the charge of the post had already been taken over from the appellants, they ought to have joined at Mainpuri and thereafter contested the validity or invalidity of the order of transfer. Hence, the petitions have been dismissed.;