IMPORTANT POINT
Where in a service matter parties were litigating since long and delay could not be attributed to either parties, applying principal of “No work no pay” 50% of back salary would meet ends of justice.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW—Termination of service on abolition of post—Respondent was appointed as lecturer in science subject and he completed two years probation—Science section in the college was closed down in 1971-1972 and post of lecturer in science was abolished and services of respondent was terminated on 6-6-1972—Respondent made representation which was allowed by Vice Chancellor—College was taken over by Govt.—Notification contained clause for obtaining option from teachers and staff to join Govt. service and if no option was received within time, services was liable to be terminated—Vide order dt. 2-7-1977 the Govt. terminated service of respondent as he did not give option and further directed appellant to pay respondent for period from 6-6-1972 to 9-1-1975—Termination order was set aside and respondent was paid arrears of salary from 6-6-1972 to 9-1-1975 on 19-2-1979—Respondent filed claim before Tribunal in 1981 against termination order dt. 2-7-1977 and Tribunal allowed the claim—High Court dismissed the writ petition—Appeal—Plea of limitation had not been raised before High Court—Delay in the litigation could not be attributed to either party—Applying principle of ‘no work no pay’, 50% of salary if ordered to be paid would meet ends of justice—Appellant also to consider question of payment of pension.
Held : It is true that both the parties are litigating in court for all these years. Therefore, the delay cannot be attributed to either parties. Therefore, applying the principle of ‘no work no pay’, we are of the opinion that 50% of the salary if ordered to be paid to the respondent No. 1 it would meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, direct the appellant to pay to respondent No. 1 the salary from 30.11.1987 till the date of superannuation (the exact date is not known).(Para 10)
We also make it clear that the respondent No. 1 would be entitled for the salary of lecturer during the relevant period in question. We also however make it clear that he would not be entitled to make a claim by way of salary etc. for any further promotion etc. The Government may also consider whether any pension is payable to the respondent No. 1 because the college is now taken over by the State Government. The Government is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders accordingly.(Para 11)

JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.—Heard both sides.

2. The appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dt. 07.04.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Writ Petition No. 3920 of 1989 whereby the High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants herein. The first appellant is the Principal, Ayurvedic College, District Pilibhit (U.P.) and the second appellant is the Director of Ayurvedic and Unani Services, Lucknow (U.P.). The third appellant is the State of U.P. through Collector, Pilibhit, District Pilibhit (U.P.). The respondent No. 1 was appointed as Science demonstrator in Lalit Hari Ayurvedic college, Pilibhit (U.P.). In the year 1966, the District Magistrate was appointed as a Receiver in the College. Thereafter, all the appointments and removal of teacher was required to be done by the Receiver, i.e., the District Magistrate. On 19.11.1967, respondent No. 1 was subsequently appointed as lecturer in science subject by the District Magistrate. He completed his probation of two years and was confirmed as a lecturer in science subject. The science section in the college was closed down in the year 1971-72 and, thereafter, the post of lecturer in science in the college was also abolished and the respondent No. 1 was declared surplus.

3. The services of respondent No. 1 was terminated vide order dt. 06.06.1972. The order of termination was communicated to the respondent No. 1 by the District Magistrate who was the Chairman of the college at that time. The termination order was issued on 06.06.1972. Against the termination order dt. 06.06.1972, the respondent No. 1 made a representation on 28.08.1972 and the same was allowed on that date by the Vice-Chancellor. Therefore, the order dt. 28.08.1972 of the Vice-Chancellor along with all the papers went sent to the Government for consideration on 10.10.1974.

4. The said college was taken over by the Government vide Notification No. 5915-Sec-9/Five 470/72. The said Notification contained a clause 7A for obtaining option from the teacher and the staff to join government services and if the option is not received within the time, their services will stand terminated. In para 7B, the responsibility to fulfil the condition is on the employee otherwise the services of the previous employment will not be counted towards pension etc. In the instant case, according to the appellants, no such option was given by the respondent No. 1 within the stipulated time. The services of respondent No. 1 was again terminated as he had not given any option to join the government service.

5. Vide order dt. 02.07.1977, the Government terminated the service of the respondent No. 1 as he did not give his option and further directed the appellants to pay the respondent No. 1 for the period starting from 06.06.1972 to 09.01.1975. The termination order was set aside and the respondent No. 1 was paid the arrears of salary from 06.06.1972 to 09.01.1975 amounting to Rs. 14,901.50 on 19.02.1979.

6. The respondent No. 1 made a claim petition to the Tribunal in the year 1981 against the order of termination communicated to him on 02.07.1977. The appellants filed written statement denying the claim. The Tribunal by order dt. 30.11.1987 allowed the claim petition as prayed for. Aggrieved by the judgment, the appellant-State of U.P. filed a Writ Petition No. 3920/1989 which was contested by the respondent No. 1. The Writ Petition was allowed by the High Court on 04.04.1997. The respondent No. 1 filed SLP (C) No. 1668/1989 and this Court remanded the matter back for reconsideration on 16.10.1998. The concluding portion of the Order passed by this Court is reproduced as under :-

“The order of the High Court is cryptic and states no reason. In fact, the matter has been dealt with in a cursory manner which is not retrospective of the judicial approach expected of the High Court. Consequently, the appeals are allowed, the judgment and the order dated 04.04.1997

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 527

IMPORTANT POINTWhere in a service matter parties were litigating since long and delay could not be attributed to either parties, applying principal of “No work no pay” 50% of back salary would meet ends of justice.

IMPORTANT POINT
Where in a service matter parties were litigating since long and delay could not be attributed to either parties, applying principal of “No work no pay” 50% of back salary would meet ends of justice.