THAKUR SINGH AND ANR. Vs. THE STATE OF H.P. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING the Census operations 1991 the Petitioners were engaged as Census Clerks by the Respondents, particularly Respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, vide letters dated 28th June, 1990, Annexures A -5 and A -6, respectively. The period of their engagement was upto 31.05.1991, on expiry of which, the Petitioners were disengaged vide Office Order dated 30.05.1991, Annexure A -1. The Petitioners on the strength of the stipulation made vide para 4 of the letter dated 12.03.1990, Annexure A -2, issued by the Secretary (Revenue) to the government of Himachal Pradesh to all the Deputy Commissioners in the State, to the effect that all existing posts of Clerks as on the date of this letter (12.03.1990) as also those becoming available thereafter upto 31.05.1991 were not to be filled and would be kept reserved for adjustment of clerks recruited during Census operations 1991, who would become surplus on 31.05.1991, that is, the date upto which they had been engaged, have filed and maintained the present petition with the submission that Respondents No. 3 to 6 who were appointed as Clerks vide Officer Order dated 27.12.1990, Annexure A -8, after the appointment of the Petitioners in clear violation of the aforesaid stipulation contained in para 4 of letter dated 12.3.1990, Annexure A -2.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , Respondents No. 3 to 6 were appointed as Clerks on or about 27.12.1990, that is, after engagement of the Petitioners on 28.06.1990. However, the fact remains that after realizing their mistake, the Respondents had again adjusted the Petitioners as clerks vide letter dated 21.01.1992, Annexure A -13/T and are continuing as such on regular basis. Meaning thereby that after they were disengaged on 01.06.1991 they were again taken back in service as Clerks on 21.01.1992. The intervening period of their disengagement comes to seven months and twenty days. Admittedly, the Petitioners had not worked during this period. It being so, to my mind, they are not entitled for any wages or salary for this period, on the principle of 'no work no pay'. However, it can also not be said that no injustice has been done to the Petitioners. It is made out that they were disengaged by the Respondents No. 1 and 2 in violation of their own instructions issued vide letter dated 12.03.1990, Annexure A -2, and particularly those contained in para 4 thereof. However, it was in the fitness of things that the mistake committed by Respondents No. 1 and 2 was rectified without much loss of time.

(3.) IN view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondents No. 1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - to the Petitioners as costs to be shared by them equally.