- (1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner is a Constable and was dismissed from the services on 24th August, 1993. His appeal was also rejected on 22nd February, 1994, against which, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 26842 of 1994, which was al lowed by judgment and order dated 19th April, 1999. THE operative portion of the order is quoted hereunder: "the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. THE dismissal order dated 24. 8. 1993 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) and appellate Court order dated 27. 2. 1994 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. THE respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. " Based on the aforesaid order, the authorities issued an order dated 5th July, 1999 reinstating the petitioner and further directing that a separate order would be passed subsequently with regard to the arrears of wages. It appears that the petitioner was aggrieved by this portion of the order, and accordingly, filed Writ Petition No. 21050 of 2000 which was disposed of by an order dated 4th of May, 2000 directing the authorities to pass appropriate orders on the question of back wages within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. Based on the said direction of the Court, the authority (respondent No. 3) passed the order dated 11. 10. 2001 refusing to pay back wages to the petitioner on the principle of "no work no pay". The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. Shri R. P. Rai, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of dismissal was set aside by this Court and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated. Consequently, when there is a direction of reinstatement by the Court, it naturally follows that the petitioner had never been terminated and had continued to remain in service, and therefore, was entitled for payment of back wages from the date of the alleged dismissal till the date of his reinstatement. Further, the learned Counsel submitted that the principle of no work no pay can not be accepted as a rule of thumb and there are exceptions when the Courts have granted monetary benefits from back date, and in the circumstances of the present case, when the order of dismissal had been found to be arbitrary and had been set aside by a Court of law, the petitioner should be granted the relief of back wages. The learned Counsel submitted that this was a fit case where the Court should direct the authorities to grant back wages to the petitioner.
(3.) IN support of his submission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of State of Kerala and others v. E. K. Bhaskaran Pillal, (2007) 6, SCC 524, wherein the Supreme Court directed grant of back wages from the date of filing of petition instead of from the date of promotion. The learned Counsel also placed reliance in the case of Hardwari Lal v. State of U. P. and others, (2000) 1 UPLBEC 331, wherein a Division Bench of this Court while set ting aside the order of dismissal issued a direction for reinstatement with 50% of salary. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on another decision of the Su preme Court in UPSRTC Ltd. v. Sarada Prasad Misra and another, (2006) 4 SCC 733, wherein the Court held that there is no cast iron rule nor there is a precise formula which could be adopted for the payment of the back wages and that it was a discretionary power to grant the back wages which had to be exercised in view of the keeping in view the facts and circumstances in each case. Having considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and upon a perusal of the various judgments, as cited above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are not at all applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.;