Denial of wages during an unlawful transfer dictates entitlement to full salary and service continuity.

MA No.4000/2025 MA No.4000/2025 filed by the applicant seeking condonation of delay of 43 days in filing Review Application (RA) No.154/2025 in OA No.67/2024 is allowed.

RA No.154/2025

1. The present Review Application has been filed by the Applicant under Section 22 (3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, seeking partial review of this Tribunal’s judgment dated 26.05.2025 passed in O.A. No. 67/2024, whereby the impugned transfer order dated 11.12.2023 was quashed and set aside with consequential benefits of continuity of service, except back wages.

2. Learned counsel for the Review Applicant submits that the exclusion of back wages amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record, as once the impugned order has been declared void and illegal, all consequential benefits, including full salary, must follow. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nawab Khan Abbas Khan v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1974 SC 1471)

and Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 178, to contend that when an administrative order is held to be non est, the employee cannot be denied wages for the period during which he was illegally prevented from discharging duties.

3. It is also pointed out that this Tribunal, vide interim order dated 23.01.2024 in M.A. No. 254/2024, had restrained the Respondents from taking coercive action against the Applicant, yet his salary was withheld from January 2024 onwards. Thus, the Applicant was ready and willing to serve but was illegally prevented by the Respondents.

4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. This Tribunal, in its final order dated 26.05.2025, had quashed the impugned transfer order as arbitrary, non-speaking, and contrary to the ESIC Transfer Policy. Once the foundation of the relieving order falls, the maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus applies, and all actions flowing therefrom also collapse. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nawab Khan Abbas Khan (supra) has held that an order declared void operates from nativity, as if it never existed. Similarly, in Krushnakant B. Parmar (supra), it was held that denial of wages despite availability for duty, when the order preventing such duty is void, is impermissible.

5. Applying the above principles, we are of the view that the Applicant cannot be denied wages for the period 01.01.2024 (date of relieving) till 27.05.2025 (date of reinstatement pursuant to our earlier order), since during this entire period he was prevented from working solely on account of an illegal and void order. Denial of salary would amount to rewarding the Respondents for their disobedience of interim directions and penalising the Applicant for asserting his legal rights.

6. However, we are not inclined to grant the claim of interest on the arrears of salary. Considering the circumstances, including the fact that the Respondents acted under colour of authority and the issue involved interpretation of the Transfer Policy, we deem it just and proper to decline the prayer for interest.

7. The Review Application is partly allowed. Our judgment dated 26.05.2025 in O.A. No. 67/2024 is reviewed and modified to the limited extent that the Applicant shall be entitled to full salary/back wages for the period 01.01.2024 till 27.05.2025, along with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. However, the prayer for grant of interest on the arrears is declined.

8. The Review Application stands disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.