IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ.
Pradeep Kumar Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Education - Respondent
W.P.(C) 13942 of 2023
Decided On : 13-12-2023
Back Wages - Central Administrative Tribunal - The court granted the petitioner the liberty to urge before the Tribunal the plea of back wages in the fresh proceedings initiated by the petitioner, and the Tribunal shall consider the same in accordance with law.
Fact of the Case:
The petition challenged an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in a case related to the re-engagement of a Guest Teacher prospectively and the plea of back wages.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted the petitioner the liberty to urge before the Tribunal the plea of back wages in the fresh proceedings initiated by the petitioner, and the Tribunal shall consider the same in accordance with law.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's entitlement to back wages from the year 2016, and the court's consideration of the same in the fresh proceedings initiated by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the principle of parity and the need to consider the plea of back wages in accordance with law.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with the grant of liberty to the petitioner to urge before the Tribunal the plea of back wages in the fresh proceedings initiated by the petitioner, and the Tribunal shall consider the same in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)
1. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated April 12, 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (`Tribunal', in short), Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 3777/2016 titled as Pradeep Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. The said OA was filed by two applicants namely Pradeep Kumar Gupta and Mahesh Chand Gupta.
2. It is noted that Mahesh Chand Gupta has filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 14310/2023. The same was disposed of on November 03, 2023 by this court in terms of the following order :
"2. The only grievance of the petitioner as has been urged by Mr.Aggarwal is that the Tribunal should not have confined the re-examination of the petitioner for re- engagement as a Guest Teacher prospectively. He submits that the petitioner's services having been disengaged in the year 2016, the petitioner was within his right to seek back wages till the date of disengagement. He concedes to the fact that the petitioner has challenged the order which has now been passed by the respondents pursuant to the impugned order of the Tribunal dated April 12, 2023. According to him, in view of the observation of the Tribunal in paragraph 13, he shall be barred from seeking back wages from the year 2016 before the Tribunal in the fresh proceedings initiated by the petitioner.
3. We say nothing on the submission made by Mr.Aggarwal except granting liberty to the petitioner to urge before the Tribunal, in the fresh proceedings initiated by him the plea of back wages. It is for the Tribunal to consider the plea of back wages in accordance with law.
4. Petition is disposed of."
3. Mr. Aggarwal states, similar liberty as was granted to Mahesh Chand Gupta be extended to the petitioner herein, who has also challenged the order now passed by the respondents.
4. We are of the view that since the writ petition arises from an order passed in OA filed by the petitioner herein and the petitioner in W.P.(C) 14310/2023, the petitioner herein is also entitled to parity and accordingly, we make it clear that liberty as granted to the petitioner in W.P.(C) 14310/2023 shall be available to the petitioner herein to urge before the Tribunal in the fresh proceedings initiated by the petitioner, the plea of back-wages and the Tribunal shall consider the same in accordance with law.
5. With the above, the petition is disposed of.
The principle of parity and the consideration of back wages in accordance with law.
Applicant would not be entitled to salary for the period for which he has not worked in the service of the respondent college and the said period for which the applicant has not worked in the respond....
An employee wrongfully terminated without a proper enquiry is entitled to be treated as under deemed suspension and receive subsistence allowance during the period of the enquiry, ensuring protection....
The petitioner was entitled to backwages for the non-working period, except for the period when he pursued a law degree and practiced law. The Court directed the respondents to calculate the backwage....
No back wages where employee at fault for not joining transfer, removal quashed on technical grounds, and disciplinary proceedings pending; 'no work, no pay' applies despite reinstatement.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.