Back
Ajit Singh, J.
H.S. Bhargava v. State of M.P.
Writ Petition No. 19993 of 2003 (J); Decided on 21.2.2005.
(2) Civil Servant -- claim of back wages -- no averments whether he was gainfully employed during termination -- no relief can be granted.
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226@227 && n;k&;kfpdk esa ikfjr vkns‘k ds fo#) ;kfpdk && pykus ;ksX; ugha && n;k&;kfpdk dkuwuh vf/kdkj ugha gS && ,sls vkns‘k U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh fo"k;oLrq ugha gSA
¼2½ flfoy lsod && fiNyh etnwjh dk nkok && izdFku ugha fd lsoklekfIr ds nkSjku D;k ykHkdj :i ls fu;ksftr Fkk && dksbZ vuqrks"k iznku ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
By this petition, the petitioner has claimed judicial review of the order dated 31.8.2001 (Annexure A-8) passed by the respondent No.1 a mercy petition by which he was reinstated subject to a penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect but without any back wages on the principle of 'no work no pay'.
The petitioner was a Head Constable in the Madhya Pradesh Police service. He was dismissed from service by order dated 1.11.1975 passed by the Superintendent of Police on charges having been proved against him in a departmental enquiry. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal against the order of his dismissal but it was dismissed on 17.2.1976. He then preferred a revision and it too was dismissed on 28.5.1976. His mercy petition was, however, allowed by the State Government by order dated 31.8.2001, Annexure A-8, by which he was reinstated subject to a penalty of withholding of one increment with Cumulative effect but without any back wages.
The petitioner has asserted that he was entitled for the back wages also and hence the order dated 31.8.2001, Annexure A-8, be accordingly reviewed judicially.
There is no averment in the petition that the petitioner has any statutory right for filing a mercy petition. The petitioner, therefore, must remain satisfied with the relief that he has been able to obtain in the mercy petition. Orders passed in a mercy petition are not subject to judicial review for 'mercy is not the subject of legal rights'. It begins where legal rights end. See de Freitas v. Benny, (1975)3 WLR 388 at pages 394,395 (PC) quoted in Reckley v. Minister of Public Safety and Immigration, (1996) 1 All ER 562 at page 569 (PC).
Further, there is also no averment in the petition that petitioner was not gainfully employed between the period of his dismissal and reinstatement.
The petition has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
