Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.
Umesh Kumar Shrivastava, S/o. Shri Jagatmohan Shrivastava – Petitioner
Versus
Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Through Its Registrar and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 16360 Of 2022
Decided On : 28-11-2023
Back Wages - Service Conditions under Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1973 - 25, 56 - The court discussed the entitlement of back wages for the petitioner from the date of his superannuation till the date of his reinstatement. The court held that the principle of 'no work no pay' does not apply when the employee was restrained from working by the employer and when the employee was vigilantly prosecuting their cause. The court quashed the condition in the impugned order and held that the petitioner is entitled to back wages from the date of his superannuation till the date of his reinstatement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a work charged employee, was retired at the age of 60 years. The State Government disapproved the proposal to extend the age of superannuation to 62 years. The petitioner was reinstated in service, but a condition in the order stated that he would not be entitled to back wages from the date of his retirement till the date of his reinstatement.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to back wages from the date of his superannuation till the date of his reinstatement. The court quashed the condition in the impugned order and directed the payment of back wages within 3 months with 6% interest if not paid within the stipulated time.
Issues: Entitlement to back wages for the petitioner from the date of his superannuation till the date of his reinstatement.
Ratio Decidendi: The principle of 'no work no pay' does not apply when the employee was restrained from working by the employer and when the employee was vigilantly prosecuting their cause.
Final Decision: The court quashed the condition in the impugned order and held that the petitioner is entitled to back wages from the date of his superannuation till the date of his reinstatement. The same shall be paid within a period of 3 months from the date of the judgment.
ORDER :
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-
(ii) Hold that on his reinstatement in service pursuant to the order dated 21.4.2022, Annexure-P/15, the petitioner is entitled for all the monetary benefits, like arrears of salary and other allowances for the period he was forcefully retired from service till the date of his reinstatement.
(iii) Direct the respondent University to fix his pension and other retiral dues on petitioner’s retirement, if so permissible in law, treating him to be in continuous service till attaining the age of 62 years, as if he was not retired earlier on attaining the age of 60 years.
(iv) Consider grant of any other relief or direction which this Court may deem proper and appropriate under the fact and circumstances of the case.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no. 1 University is a body constituted under Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1973 and is competent to create administrative, ministerial and other necessary posts and to make appointments thereto. The “Board” has been constituted under Section 25 of the Act, which is empowered to approve and sanction the budget of the University and to exercise other powers and the duties to carry out the purpose of the Act and administration. The petitioner was initially appointed under the fold of respondent no. 3 as Sub Engineer in the work charged establishment by order dated 29.12.1984. The appointment of the petitioner was against vacant post and a pay scale and job was permanent in nature. Such status was confirmed by an express administrative order dated 4.9.2001 followed by an order dated 20.12.2002 passed by the University.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent University has maintained almost all the service conditions at par with the regular employees and maintained the seniority list of Sub Engineer, Sub Overseer and Time Keepers giving referred to J.N.K.V.V. Services (General Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1969. It is the case of the petitioner that the State Government through its Finance Department by circulars dated 12.5.1980, 11.12.1980 and 20.1.2000 clarified that the age of the superannuation of work charged employees shall also be extended from 60 to 62 years applying the provisions of FR-56. The Managing Board of the University in its 222nd meeting convened on 20.6.2018, approved the proposal of extending the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years for all the work charged and contingency paid employees (employees in time scale and time keepers, sub engineers under work charged head), with a rider to obtain sanction from the State Government. A letter dated 27.6.2018 was sent to the State Government mentioning that there is no financial implication if the age of superannuation of 125 time scale labourers and 9 work charged employees is enhanced upto 62 years. Although the University is itself competent to take a decision where financial implication is not necessary, still sanction from the State Government was sought. However, the State Government by adopting a casual approach disapproved the proposal of the University, by taking a stand to the effect that the provisions of FR-56 are not applicable to the employees working the work charged/contingency establishments. Accordingly, by letter dated 7.9.2019 the petitioner was intimated that he shall stand retired from service w.e.f. 31.7.2020 after attaining the age of 60 years. On 23.1.2020 respondent no. 3 had made a clear recommendation to respondent no. 1 that all the service conditions as per the service rules prevailing in the State Government can be applied in respect of 6 employees (including petitioner) working in the work charged establishment and there would be no financial implication if such recommendation is accepted.
4. It is further case of the petitioner th
The court upheld the retirement age of 60 for employees of a public sector undertaking, declaring attempts to roll back this age unauthorized without Cabinet approval.
The principle of 'No Work No Pay' is inapplicable where employees are denied work due to illegal amendments, reinforcing the right to remuneration under illegal termination circumstances.
Changes to retirement age rules are prospective and cannot be applied retroactively unless explicitly stated.
The doctrine of 'no work no pay' applies unless the employee proves lack of gainful employment during the disputed period, placing the burden of proof on both parties.
The extension of the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation is a policy decision of the Government, but it cannot be used to discriminate against certain employees.
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
