Back
2017 Supreme(Ori) 1139
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Jagabandhu Dash - Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa and others - Opposite Parties
O.J.C. No. 1720 of 1996
Decided On : 16-11-2017
For the Petitioner: M/s. Dhirendra Kumar Mohapatra & Miss. Minati Mishra.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. B. Mohanty, Standing Counsel for School & Mass Education Department.
Headnote:
Back Wages - Employment Termination - O.J.C. No. 3801 of 1994 - [State Education Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar Appeal No.6 of 1989, O.J.C. No. 5008 of 1991] - The court considered the petitioner's claim for back wages, continuity, increment, and due seniority from the date of his initial appointment. The court found that the petitioner's termination was due to unauthorized absence, and the principle of 'no work no pay' applied. The court also noted that the salary is to be paid based on the post, not on the individual working. The court directed the authorities to reconsider the petitioner's increment and pay scale, remitting the matter for fresh consideration.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Clerk at P.S. High School, was terminated from service and challenged the termination. The Appellate Authority reinstated the petitioner but denied back wages. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking reinstatement, back wages, and continuity of service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's termination was due to unauthorized absence, justifying the denial of back wages. The court directed the authorities to reconsider the petitioner's increment and pay scale, remitting the matter for fresh consideration.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's claim for back wages, continuity, increment, and due seniority from the date of his initial appointment, and the denial of back wages by the Appellate Authority and Inspector of Schools.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principle of 'no work no pay' applied due to the petitioner's unauthorized absence, justifying the denial of back wages. The court also emphasized that salary is to be paid based on the post, not on the individual working, and directed the authorities to reconsider the petitioner's increment and pay scale.
Final Decision: The court remitted the matter before the Director, Secondary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar to reconsider the petitioner's increment and pay scale, and to take a fresh decision within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
JUDGMENT :
S.N. Prasad, J.
This writ petition is for issuance of direction upon the opposite parties to quash the order 28.12.1992 passed by the Presiding Officer, State Education Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar under Annexure-2 whereby whereunder the Appellate Authority, while allowing the appeal, has reinstated the petitioner in service within three months from the date of the order, but, however, holding him not entitled to the back wages as also the order dated 15.1.1996 passed by the Inspector of Schools, Sundargarh under Annexure-7, especially the decision taken by him at paragraph-2 which relates to non-payment of arrear of salary.
2. The grievance raised by the petitioner in this case is that he, while working as Clerk in the P.S. High School, Jareikela in the district of Sundargarh w.e.f. 19.7.1977, was terminated from service w.e.f. 9.5.1984. The petitioner has challenged his termination by filing the appeal before the State Education Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar being Appeal No.6 of 1989 whereby and whereunder the Appellate Authority, while disposing of the appeal vide order dated 28.12.1992, has allowed the appeal in part, reinstated the petitioner in service, but holding him not entitled to the back wages.
3. The petitioner has approached before this Court by filing a writ petition being O.J.C. No. 3801 of 1994 praying inter alia therein to call for the records of Appeal No.6 of 1989 decided on 28.12.1992 and after perusing the same, a direction has been sought for upon the opposite parties to immediate reinstatement of the petitioner in his former post, deeming continuance of petitioner’s service without any break whatsoever from 9.5.1984 till his reinstatement and payment of back wages of the petitioner from 9.5.1984 till his reinstatement and declaring that the order dated 2.1.1992 passed in O.J.C. No. 5008 of 1991 is neither binding on the petitioner nor affecting the rights of the petitioner in any manner.
A Division Bench of this Court has disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 25.7.1995 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to make representation before the Inspector of Schools regarding the claim related to back wages from 9.5.1994. The petitioner has made a representation and in the light of the same, the Inspector of Schools has passed the order dated 15.1.1996 whereby and whereunder the back wages have been refused to be extended in his favour on the ground that one Sri N.P. Verma was appointed against his termination vacancy and was paid his salary in pursuant to the order dated 21.1.1992 passed in O.J.C. No. 5008 of 1991.
4. The petitioner, being aggrieved with these two orders, i.e., under Annexures-2 and 7, is before this Court by way of this instant writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is claiming his back wages as also the continuity, increment and due seniority to be counted from the date of his initial appointment.
6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the School and Mass Education Department has submitted that the petitioner cannot be held to be entitled for the back wages for the period when he was opt for service for the reason that the other person, namely, Sri N.P. Verma was engaged against the termination vacancy of the petitioner and when he was not been disbursed with his salary for the said period, he has approached before this Court by filing a writ petition being O.J.C. No. 5008 of 1991 wherein this Court has directed to disburse the arrear of salary in favour of Sri N.P. Verma and in the light of the said direction, the salary has been disbursed in his favour and as such, for a single post, there cannot be disbursement, since the salary is to be given on the post not on the individual. As such, it has been submitted that the claim of the petitioner for back wages is not justified.
He has further submitted that the Appellate Authority has taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and has specifically d
