Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
Katuri Rambabu - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.12689 of 2020
Decided On : 22-04-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 – Equality before Law - ‘No work-no pay’ – Petitioner was initially appointed by the 3rd respondent as Physical Education Teacher (PET) in Education Department in Guntur District being selected through DSC- 2008. He joined and his probation period was declared successful and services were regularized vide proceedings - Held, the period in question cannot be termed as willful absence from duty by the petitioner and there is also no order of punishment imposed on the petitioner. The order of termination was set aside by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. This is not a case where in some departmental enquiry, order of punishment was passed and the period of absence of the employee was to be accounted for and so to maintain the continuity of the employee into service order of ‘dies non’ was to be passed for giving continuity in service. The order of termination having been quashed, the petitioner became entitled to all the consequential service benefits flowing from setting aside of the order of termination including continuity in service. The petitioner could not be denied salary etc for the period he remained out of service of the respondents by declaring that period as dies-non. The result of quashing the order of termination, by the Tribunal, is that the petitioner continued in service, without any break in service and entitled to all the consequential service benefits. There is no question of passing order of dies-non by the employer so as to deprive him the service benefits including payment of salary etc for the period declared as ‘dies-non’ - Writ petition allowed in part.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri K. M. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-III.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed by the 3rd respondent as Physical Education Teacher (PET) in Education Department in Guntur District vide Rc.No.12311/A8/2008 dated 16.10.2009 being selected through DSC- 2008. He joined on 19.10.2009 and his probation period was declared successful on 18.10.2011 and services were regularized vide proceedings in Dis.No.11678/A5/2012 dated 20.10.2012.
4. The petitioner was given a show-cause notice dated 04.04.2015 by the 3rd respondent-District Educational Officer, Guntur, as to why the petitioner’s services be not terminated to implement the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A.No.9147 of 2009 by some other candidate, to accommodate that candidate.
5. In the DSC, 2008 selection the petitioner had secured 48 marks and was the last selected candidate in his category. The Tribunal in O.A.No.9147 of 2009, directed to award ½ mark to the petitioner therein who had secured 47½ marks. Consequently his marks also became 48 ie same as of the present petitioner but the petitioner being younger in age the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for termination, to implement the order of the Tribunal in favour of the other candidate. The petitioner submitted explanation on 13.04.2015 but inspite thereof the order of termination was passed by the 3rd respondent on 28.04.2015, against which the petitioner filed O.A.No.2469 of 2015 which was allowed by A.P. Administrative Tribunal vide judgment dated 07.07.2017. The order of termination was set aside. The petitioner was reinstated in service by respondents vide proceedings in Rc.No.817/TRC-2/2016 dated 25.10.2017, pursuant to which the petitioner joined on 20.11.2017.
6. The petitioner’s representation dated 02.05.2018 to treat the period with effect from 28.04.2015 the date of termination upto 19.11.2017 the date preceding the reinstatement, on duty and for payment of salary, was decided by the 1st respondent/State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, AP Secretariat, Amaravati vide Memo dated 25.01.2020 to treat the said period as ‘Dies – Non’ for all consequential purposes. Against that order dated 28.01.2020 the present petition has been filed.
7. Sri K.M. Krishna Reddy submits that once the petitioner’s O.A.No.2469 of 2015 was allowed and the order of termination was set aside, all the consequential benefits shall follow. The respondents are legally bound to treat the period in question as on duty and pay the salary for the said period with all other service benefits. He submits that the petitioner was not at any fault and his services were terminated not on any charge against him. The order impugned treating period as ‘Dies Non’ even does not assign any reason and is a non speaking order.
8. Learned Government Pleader for Services-III submits that the 3rd respondent-District Education Officer also passed order pursuant to the order passed by the 1st respondent-Secretary to the Government, which are sustainable on the principle of ‘no work-no pay’. The petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed.
9. I
The importance of providing an opportunity of hearing to the employee/petitioner before passing any adverse order, as mandated by the principles of natural justice.
Court affirmed 'No Work No Pay' applies where absence is unauthorized and justified by inquiry findings.
Even though there is no express requirement in Fundamental Rule 54[3] for giving an opportunity to employee before passing an order, giving of such an opportunity is implicit in the exercise of power....
Failure to revert probationer to lien post upon termination attributes non-work period to employer; 'dies non' inapplicable, period counts as qualifying service with income adjustment.
The competent authority's discretion in determining pay and allowances for reinstated employees and the denial of back wages must be in line with the relevant rules and regulations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
