Back
2024 Supreme(All) 991
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, JJ.
Superintending Engineer Electricity Work Division Prayagraj And Another – Appellant
Versus
Israr Ali And Another – Respondent
Special Appeal Defective No.345 of 2024
Decided on : 02-07-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Adarsh Bhushan
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Shamim Uddin Khan
IMPORTANT POINT
The entitlement to additional salary or honorarium is contingent upon the actual performance of the duties associated with the position, and claims made after a significant delay, especially when the claimant has not performed the relevant duties, are not sustainable.
Headnote:
DELAY CONDONATION - CIVIL PROCEDURE - N/A - The court allowed the delay condonation application, treating the special appeal as filed within time. The court emphasized the importance of the principle of 'no work no pay' and the necessity of actual performance of duties to claim benefits, particularly in the context of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation's order regarding additional salary for drivers. The court interpreted the legislative intent behind the compensation order, asserting that it should not extend to those who have not fulfilled the requisite duties.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-petitioner, a former driver, sought additional salary (honorarium) for the years 2010-2019 after his retirement in 2019, despite not having performed driving duties since 2010 due to health issues. The learned Single Judge had allowed his writ petition, directing payment of the honorarium based on a 2011 order from the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent-petitioner had not performed the duties of a driver since 2010 and had instead been assigned lighter office work due to health reasons. The court emphasized that the claim for additional salary was made belatedly and was not justified as the petitioner had not demanded it during his service.
Issues: Whether the respondent-petitioner was entitled to claim additional salary (honorarium) for the years he did not perform the duties of a driver, and whether the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The principle of 'no work no pay' applies, meaning that an employee is not entitled to remuneration for duties not performed. The court highlighted that the entitlement to the honorarium is contingent upon the actual performance of driving duties, and the respondent-petitioner’s prolonged inaction and failure to claim the honorarium during his service constituted acquiescence.
Final Decision: The judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside, and the special appeal was allowed, denying the claim for additional salary.
JUDGMENT :
(Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2024)
1. Shri Shamim Uddin Khan, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner states that he is not inclined to file an objection to the delay condonation application and he has no objection in case delay condonation application is allowed.
2. For the reasons stated in affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application, as the same constitutes sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing Special Appeal, the delay condonation application is allowed. The Special Appeal is treated to have been filed well within time.
(Order on Special Appeal)
1. Heard Shri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the appellant-respondents and Shri Shamim Uddin Khan, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner.
2. The present intra-court appeal is preferred against the Judgment dated 15.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 19152 of 2021 (Israr Ali vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others) on the ground that the relief that has been sought for by the respondent-petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition was at belated stage, as the aforesaid writ petition was instituted in the year 2021 and respondent petitioner was superannuated on 30.06.2019, whereas, the cause of action arose way back in the year 2011.
3. The learned Single Judge vide it's order dated 15.02.2024 had finally allowed the writ petition with a direction to the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Works Division, Prayagraj, ordering him to pay the petitioner, arrears of one month additional salary (honorarium) from the financial year 2010-11 until the financial year till he retired, in accordance with the Corporation's order dated 5th July, 2011, together with 6% interest due from the date that each year's honorarium fell due until payment.
4. Shri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the appellant-respondents has vehemently submitted that during the year 2010 to 2019, admittedly the petitioner had not discharged his duty as driver. But on his request, on account of his suffering from serious heart ailment and lungs disease, appellant-respondents on humanitarian ground had not assigned any work to the respondent-petitioner in the capacity of driver, and he was assigned only office work to keep and maintain the record of files. Even in the counter affidavit a categorical stand was taken before learned Single Judge that the appellant-respondent had released an amount of Rs. 1,39,600/-in favour of respondent-petitioner with regard to the treatment of his heart ailment during 05.07.2013 to 18.07.2013 and necessary bills have also been brought on record alongwith counter affidavit.
5. In this background, learned counsel for the appellant-respondents further submits that it is not in dispute that the petitioner had performed the work as driver in the Corporation only till 2010. Due to his own medical condition, he moved an application for some ministerial work and admittedly on the basis of his insistence, and on humanitarian ground, the said request was processed by the department and he was accorded lighter work. No where, in the writ petition it has been mentioned that he has actually performed the work of driver. He fairly states that no formal order to that effect has although been passed by the department but admittedly, the petitioner has not performed the work as driver in the Corporation and the said one month additional salary was also not paid since year 2010. Further, he had never made any claim qua the additional one month salary from the Corporation since 2010 and he kept mum through out his service period. He further submits that after two years of superannuation, respondent-petitioner initiated a claim of one month additional salary w.e.f. 2010 to 2019 after lapse of almost 12 years by way of filing the aforesaid writ petition. He submits that the learned Single Judge erred in law and has passed the impugned judgment without considering the above said aspect of the matter finally allowed the writ
