- (1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. The petitioner was appointed as a Cook in the Central Reserve Police Force in the year 1991. On account of over-stay, the petitioner's services was terminated by an order dated 24th February, 1999, against which, he filed an appeal which was also dismissed. The petitioner preferred a revision, which was also rejected. The petitioner thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 28801 of 1999 praying for the quashing of the orders of the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority and also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to restore the services of the petitioner as Cook and to pay him the arrears of salary, and also continue to pay him the current salary month to month. The said writ petition was allowed by a judgment dated 27th February, 2001 and the order of termination was set aside. The Court while setting aside the order of termination, moulded the relief and directed that instead of removing the petitioner from service, 3 increments with cumulative effect be withheld, which would commensurate with the misconduct. The Court was of the opinion that the punishment awarded was excessive and disproportionate to the misconduct. It transpires that the respondents, being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, preferred a special appeal, which was also rejected. Even then the order of the Court was not complied with and the petitioner was compelled to file a contempt application. During the pendency of the contempt proceedings, the petitioner was reinstated in service, but was not paid the arrears of salary vide order dated 24th June, 2002, on the ground, that the petitioner did not work during the intervening period. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 24th June, 2002, has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) HEARD Shri Lokendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri N. P. Shukla, the learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of termination was set aside by the Court and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated. Consequently, when there was a direction for reinstatement, he was entitled for payment of back wages from the date of the alleged dismissal till the date of his reinstatement. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Brahma Chandra Gupta v. Union of India, (1984) 2 SCC 433, wherein the Supreme Court found it fit to grant full salary upon reinstatement of the said petitioner. Similarly, reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Syed Zaheer Hussain v. Union of India and others, (1999) 2 UPLBEC 944, wherein the Supreme Court while reinstating the delinquent employee, granted 50% back wages. The learned counsel consequently submitted that the principle of 'no work no pay cannot be applied and that there are exceptions when the Courts have granted monetary benefits from a back date, and consequently, in the circumstances of the present case, when the order of dismissal was found to be disproportionate with the misconduct, the relief of back wages should be granted. The learned counsel, consequently, submitted that a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the authorities to grant back wages to the petitioner.
(3.) HAVING considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner this Court 'is, of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. In the case of M/s Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South Indian Trust Association, Madras, AIR 1992 SC 1439, the Supreme Court held that if there is no specific direction by a Court of law to reinstate a person, consequently, the respondents could not be held liable for any wilful contempt for not reinstating that person.;