Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Asha Menon, JJ.
Vinay Mohan Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P. (C) 4612 of 2021, CM Appl. 14099 of 2021
Decided On : 15-04-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's eligibility for pay during non-duty period (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. ministry of home affairs to decide on merits (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. writ petition disposed of with directions (Para 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)
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 period of a Government employee who has either been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or placed under suspension, whereas the Petitioner had only proceeded on superannuation as directed.
5. A perusal of the paper book reveals that admittedly the petitioner has been communicated vide selo message dated 21st September, 2020 [ANNEXURE-L] that his request regarding eligibility of pay and allowances for intervening period on rejoining duty had been taken up with MHA and decision on the issue will be intimated on receipt of clarification from MHA.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid the Ministry of Home Affairs is directed to take a decision on the said issue as expeditiously as possible but not later than twelve weeks.
7. This Court clarifies that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy. The Ministry of Home Affairs shall take a decision on its own merits in accordance with the law, without being influenced by any observation made by this Court.
8. Accordingly, present writ petition and application stand disposed of.
9. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.
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 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 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....
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....
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....
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
