Denial of salary and seniority benefits for an irregularly appointed employee upheld, as 'no work no pay' principle applies unless prevented from working through no fault of their own.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. The instant Writ Petition under Article 226 & 227 has been preferred against the Order of the Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal ("CAT") dated 05.08.2003 in O.A. 3114/2002 whereby the Ld. CAT has rejected the claim of the Petitioner ("Impugned Order").

2. The brief facts of this case are that the Petitioner was initially working as a Floor Assistant in the Respondent organisation in the pay scale of Rs.330-480, on contractual basis. Later, he was regularised as a Floor Assistant from 03.05.1982. On 02.04.1984 the Respondents issued an advertisement for filling up the post of Production Assistant in a higher pay scale, i.e., of Rs.425-750. The Petitioner responded to the said advertisement, was selected for the said post, and the Respondents issued a memorandum dated 20.12.1984 confirming the Petitioner's selection subsequent to which he started working.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondents have made him work as a Production Assistant but have not paid him the requisite salary for the post. Further, that they have denied him the benefits of seniority and arrears of salary flowing directly from the Judgement and Order of this Court dated 30.07.2001 in W.P.(C) 7553/1999.

4. This Court, vide Judgment and Order of this Court dated 30.07.2001 in W.P. (C) 7553/1999 held that the Respondents are required to consider renewal of Petitioner's contract from 04.10.1993 and grant payment of arrears of salary from 16.01.1985 till 04.10.1993.

5. Subsequent to the Judgement of this Court dated 30.07.2001 the Respondents had passed a series of orders on 19.12.2001 and16.01.2002 vide which the Petitioner's employment was regularised and his pay was notionally fixed from 04.10.1993. However, the Petitioner was not paid the salary for the post of Production Assistant for the period he had not performed his duty as one. Further, it was stated that the Petitioner along with the other Production Assistants will not be allowed to claim seniority on the basis of their past service.

6. The Petitioner has prayed for this Court to set aside the Impugned Order and direct the Respondents to pay alleged arrears of wages due and drawn from 05.10.1993 to 19.12.2001 after grant of due increment and seniority along with penal interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

7. It is pertinent to note that on the basis of complaints received alleging lack of fairness in selection of 14 Production Assistants who were selected along with the Petitioner, an inquiry was made by the Central Bureau of Investigation ("CBI") against their contractual employment. Vide the inquiry report, it was found that there was irregularity in their appointment. On 30.07.1988, it was decided to terminate the employment of said Production Assistants under Rule 5(1) of CCS Temporary Service Rules, 1965. Thereafter, the terminated Production Assistants had decided to file O.A. No. 1441/88 before the Ld. CAT which was dismissed. Subsequently, upon representations being made by the Production Assistants to the Respondents, on sympathetic grounds, they were appointed afresh on the condition that their seniority will only be counted from the date of their joining and they cannot take benefit of seniority of past service.

8. Vide Order dated 27.04.2009 in this Petition, a Division Bench of this Court had recorded the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner wherein he had categorically stated that the only question which remained to be