2007 Supreme(SC) 1109

2007(6) Supreme 113
Supreme Court of india
(From Jharkhand High Court)
C.K. Thakker & Tarun Chatterjee, JJ.
Sukhdeo Pandey — Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Anr. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 3888 of 2007
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15065 of 2006]
Decided on : 24-08-2007

important point
Well-settled that a person must be paid if he has worked and should not be paid if he has not.

Headnote:(a)Service Law – Dismissal – Appellant was appointed as EDBPM – He had cleared the examination for the promotional cadre of Postman – As no effect was given to the said selection being vitiated, none could claim any benefit from the list prepared at the said selection process. (Para 10)

       (b)Service Law – Reinstatement – In view of quashing of the order of dismissal by High Court, appellant ought to have been reinstated to the substantive post held by him which was EDBPM and not the next promotional post of Postman, albeit reserve. (Para 11)

       (c)Service Law – Reversion – Appellant working on the post of Postman for long period illegally and irregularly – Since he had no right to hold the said post, the respondent authorities rightly reverting him to his substantive post, particularly after due observance of principles of natural justice and fair play – No illegality committed by the respondents. (Para 12)

       (d)Service Law – Though the order passed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court dismissing appellant’s petitions praying for continuation as Postman is not contrary to law or otherwise illegal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, respondents directed to continue appellant as Postman on which he was reinstated about fifteen years back. (Para 16)

       (1993) 3 SCC 591 – Relied upon.

       (e)Service Law – In absence of any interim relief granted by any court in his favour, it was obligatory on appellant to report for duty as EDBPM on reversion from the cadre of Postman – In view of his not joining duty and not working, appellant not entitled to salary for the period for which he has not worked. (Para 17)

       Facts of the case :

       The appellant was appointed as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (‘EDBPM’) in 1964. The appellant appeared in the Departmental Promotion Examination for the promotional cadre (Class III) of Postman and allied services from Class IV. On April 30, 1969, the appellant, along with twenty two other candidates, was declared successful and eligible for promotion to the post of Postman and allied cadre. But it was alleged that there were some irregularities in conducting the examination and accordingly the said examination was cancelled. Consequently, the appellant could not be appointed as Postman.

       It is the case of the appellant that one Deoraj Ram, the then Inspector of Post Offices lodged a false complaint against him alleging that the appellant had committed an offence punishable under Section 467 read with Section 469 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of pendency of the case, the appellant was not allowed to join duty. The police, after investigation, found that no offence had been committed by the appellant. A final report was submitted on April 24, 1973 by the police, which was accepted by the Court. The Inspector of Post Offices then filed a protest report which was re-inquired and re-investigated and again a final report was submitted by the police on September 2, 1975 in favour of the appellant which was again accepted by the Court. Meanwhile, on August 16, 1973, a departmental charge-sheet was served on the appellant in respect of the aforesaid allegations. According to the appellant, without holding any inquiry, he was arbitrarily removed from service in May, 1977. A Departmental Appeal filed by the appellant came to be dismissed on September 27, 1977. He, therefore, approached the High Court of Patna at Ranchi Bench by filing petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court, on August 7, 1984 allowed the petition, quashed and set aside the order of removal by granting liberty to the authorities to pass fresh order in accordance with law. Even at that stage, the Department did not permit the appellant to join duty on one pretext or the other. Finally, by an order dated September 21, 1991, the Postmaster (HSC), Gridih Head Quarter appointed the appellant as Reserve Postman in the cadre of Postman on temporary basis. He continued to hold the said post thereafter.

       Since the appellant was not paid salary during the pendency of the proceedings, he filed a petition being C.W.J.C. No. 4305 of 2000 in the High Court of Patna for payment of his dues. The High Court, however, directed the appellant to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. The appellant, therefore, filed Original Application No. 88 of 2002 for arrears of salary and other benefits. According to the appellant, as a counter blast, the Superintendent of Post Offices, respondent No.2 herein, issued a notice to the appellant on February 17, 2003 to show cause as to why he should not be ordered to join the post of EDBPM instead of Postman. The respondent No.2, however, reverted him as EDBPM on March 7, 2003. The appellant, therefore, filed Original Application No. 78 of 2003 against the reversion. The Tribunal by a common order dated April 21, 2005 dismissed both the applications. The High Court also dismissed the writ petition

       Findings of the Court :

       Although reversion of the appellant was not contrary to law or otherwise illegal, looking to the long period for which he had worked as Postman, respondents directed to continue him as such.

       In view of the appellant not joining duty after reversion from Postman to EDBPM, held not entitled to salary for that period.

       Result : Appeal partly allowed.