Back
MANMOHAN, ASHA MENON
Vinay Mohan Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J.
The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
WP(C) 4612/2021
1. Present writ petition has been filed for issuance of directions to the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to regularize the intervening period from 01st March, 2019 to 11th October, 2019 (i.e. the date of the petitioner s superannuation upon attaining the age of 57 years to the date of his re-joining) as "duty" along with all other consequential benefits.
2. In the present writ petition it has been averred that the petitioner had superannuated from his post in CRPF upon attaining the age of 57 years on 28th February, 2019 and then subsequently allowed to rejoin vide letter dated 21st September, 2019 in view of the judgment of this court in Dev Sharma vs. ITBP and Anr., WP(C) 1951/2012.
3. However, in the rejoining letter, it has been stated that the petitioner is not entitled to any pay for the intervening period on the principle of "no work no pay" and intervening period will be treated as non-duty under Fundamental Rule-54 [FR-54].
4. In the writ petition it has also been averred that FR-54 is not applicable to the present case as it relates only to reinstatement or regularization of intervening per
The court's decision emphasized the importance of the Ministry of Home Affairs making a decision on the regularization issue without being influenced by any observation made by the court.
The court held that Fundamental Rule-54 does not apply to a superannuated employee, directing the Ministry to determine pay eligibility for the intervening period.
The principle of 'no work, no pay' and the importance of challenging decisions that affect one's rights were central to the court's decision.
The principle of 'no work, no pay' applies, denying pay to petitioners for the period between superannuation and re-joining as they did not challenge their superannuation.
The court ruled that pension benefits related to age of superannuation can be applied only to those below the age limit established in prior case law, reinforcing the validity of previous judicial de....
Class IV servants engaged part-time/daily wages prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized after retire at 60 years based on engagement date; retrospective notional benefits for pension to those retired ear....
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....
The main legal point established is that in cases of reinstatement, the treatment of the period of absence from duty should be in accordance with Fundamental Rule 54, and the petitioner should be ent....
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
