Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.MANIKUMAR, SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, JJ.
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
C.Vasu and Ors. – Respondents
W.A.No.2507 of 2018 and CMP No.20334 of 2018
Decided On : 03-12-2018
Governing the service - Education Department - Employee remained in service - First respondent joined as a Peon and subsequently, re-designated as Office Assistant, in the erstwhile Aided Management of Madras Hindu Sevak Sangh Aided High School. He was relieved from service by the management and there was a battle between the Management of School and the first respondent, and ultimately he was reinstated in service on 08.08.1986. Thereafter, he was redeployed to the 4th appellant school on 10.10.1990 and he joined the said school on the same day. First respondent made a representation seeking for regularisation of his services from the date of issuance of Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.822, Education Department, dated 16.08.1991, which gave relaxation for those who were appointed, without resorting to employment exchange for appointment. First respondent also sought for, regularisation from the initial date of his appointment, i.e. 16.07.1979. Since there was no reply, first respondent filed W.P.No.18091 of 1996 for the above said relief. The said writ petition was allowed with a positive direction – Held, Once it is found that the decision of the respondents is illegal, it has to be held that the respondents have illegally prevented the petitioner from discharging his duties from 01.10.1999 and if the respondents illegally prevented the petitioner from attending to the duties, respondents are bound to pay salary fro the period for which the petitioner was not allowed to perform his duties - The legal principles which emerge from the decisions cited supra are that the normal rule of "No work, No pay" is not applicable to cases where the employee although was willing to work, is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of him. The principle of "No Work No Pay" cannot be accepted as a Rule of Thumb, in a case where the administration has wrongly denied his due, the Government servant/employee should be given the benefits, as per the Fundamental Rules, including monetary benefits, subject there being any change in law or some supervening factors. As held by the Division Bench in Munivenkatappas case, once it is found that the decision of the respondent is illegal, it has to held that the respondents have illegally prevented the employee from discharging his duty and consequently he is entitled to the emoluments for the period for which he was not allowed to perform his duties. In all these decisions, the Apex Court as well as this Honble Court have held that if the government servant or employee is denied of a benefit or deprived of his legitimate right due to the fault of the department/employer, then the government servant/employee should not be made to suffer, but for specific circumstances, such as change in law or some supervening circumstances - In the case on hand, the first respondent was relieved by the school and lateron reinstated. It is not the case of the appellants that he was not willing to work during the period in dispute. In W.P.No.18091 of 1996 dated 17.08.2000, this Court directed regularisation from the date of initial appointment with all consequential benefits. In the said order the first respondent/writ petitioner therein has narrated as to how he was relieved from the school. He has averred the details of the appeal filed by the management before the Tribunal and the order passed. Therefore, it is not open to the appellants, to deny regularisation for the interregnum period - Appeal is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
S.MANIKUMAR, J.
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 20.10.2016 made in W.P.No.7800 of 2010.
1. Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 20.10.2016 made in W.P.No.7800 of 2016, by which the writ Court, directed the appellants to regularise the services of the first respondent from 13.10.1983 to 07.08.1986, with all service and attendant benefits, as per the relevant service rules, governing the service condition of the first respondent, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal are as follows:
First respondent joined as a Peon and subsequently, re-designated as Office Assistant, in the erstwhile Aided Management of Madras Hindu Sevak Sangh Aided High School. He was relieved from service by the management and there was a battle between the Management of School and the first respondent, and ultimately he was reinstated in service on 08.08.1986. Thereafter, he was redeployed to the 4th appellant school on 10.10.1990 and he joined the said school on the same day. First respondent made a representation seeking for regularisation of his services from the date of issuance of Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.822, Education Department, dated 16.08.1991, which gave relaxation for those who were appointed, without resorting to employment exchange for appointment. First respondent also sought for, regularisation from the initial date of his appointment, i.e. 16.07.1979. Since there was no reply, first respondent filed W.P.No.18091 of 1996 for the above said relief. The said writ petition was allowed with a positive direction. In compliance of the said order, Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.62 School Education Department, dated 18.06.2004, wherein the Government, after having considered the request of the first respondent for regularisation of service, though had agreed to regularise his service from 16.07.1979, refused to accept to regularise his services from the date i.e. 13.10.1983 to 07.08.1986, for the purpose of service benefits.
3. It is the grievance of the first respondent, that though he had obtained a favourable order in WP No.18091 of 1996 on 17.08.2000, the same was not complied with fully and partial relief alone was given to him. Therefore, first respondent sent several representations during 2007, 2008 as well as 2009. As none of the representation evoked any response, the first respondent has filed W.P.No.7800 of 2010.
4. After hearing the learned counsel on either side and on perusal of the material on record, writ Court, vide order dated 20.10.2016, disposed of the writ petition and passed orders in favour of the first respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, instant writ appeal has been filed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
6. In G.O.Ms.No.822, Education (D2) Department dated 16.08.1991, Government have issued orders, ratifying the appointment of the First respondent and regularised his services with effect from 18.07.1979 to 13.10.1983 and again from 08.08.1986, as a special case, relaxing the rules relating to appointment through Employment Exchange and provisions relating to reservation of appointment. In the said Government Order, services of the first respondent have also been regularised from the date of issuance of the Government Order. However, without challenging the said Government Order i.e. G.O.Ms.No.822, Education (D2) Department dated 16.08.1991, first respondent has filed WP.No.18091 of 1996 stating that he was appointed as Office Assistant on 16.07.1979, and discharged from service on 13.10.1983. Subsequent to the orders passed in CMA No.183 of 1984 by the learned First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, reinstatement was made on 18.08.1986. In the said writ petition, the first respondent has also referred to G.O.Ms.No.822, Education (D2) Department dated 16.08.1991, wherein Government have gr
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
