09 December 2015
Supreme Court
Download

SHOBHA RAM RATURI Vs HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.

Bench: JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR,ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
Case number: C.A. No.-011325-011325 / 2011
Diary number: 29241 / 2011
Advocates: A. VENAYAGAM BALAN Vs RAJESH MAHALE


1

Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11325 OF 2011

Shobha Ram Raturi ..Appellant versus

Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and others ..Respondents O R D E R

It is not a matter of dispute, that the appellant was  retired from service on 31.12.2002, even though he would have, in  the  ordinary  course,  attained  his  date  of  retirement  on  superannuation, only on 31.12.2005.  The appellant assailed the  order of his retirement dated 31.12.2002 by filing writ petition  no. 751 of 2003.  The same was allowed by a learned Single Judge of  the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on 14.09.2010.  The operative  part of the order is extracted hereunder:

“Accordingly the present writ petition is allowed;  order dated 31.12.2002 (Annexure P-4) is quashed.  The petitioner would be treated to be in continuous  service with all consequential benefits. However it  is  clarified  that  since  the  petitioner  has  not  worked on the post maxim of “no work, no pay” shall  apply and the consequential benefits shall only be  determined  towards  terminal  benefits.   However  there will be no order as to costs.”  

The denial of back wages to the appellant by the High  Court vide its order dated 14.09.2010 was assailed by the appellant  by filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 489 of 2011.  The High Court  rejected the claim of the appellant, while dismissing the Letters  Patent  Appeal  on  26.5.2011.   The  orders  dated  14.09.2010  and  26.5.2011 passed by the High Court limited to the issue of payment

2

Page 2

2

of back wages, are subject matter of challenge before this Court. Having  given  our  thoughtful  consideration  to  the  

controversy, we are satisfied, that after the impugned order of  retirement  dated  31.12.2002  was  set  aside,  the  appellant  was  entitled to all consequential benefits.  The fault lies with the  respondents in not having utilised the services of the appellant  for the period from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005.  Had the appellant been  allowed to continue in service, he would have readily discharged  his duties.  Having restrained him from rendering his services with  effect  from  1.1.2003  to  31.12.2005,  the  respondent  cannot  be  allowed to press the self serving plea of denying him wages for the  period in question, on the plea of the principle of “no work no  pay”.

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are satisfied,  that the impugned order passed by the High Court, to the limited  extend  of  denying  wages  to  the  appellant,  for  the  period  from  1.1.2003  to  31.12.2005  deserves  to  be  set  aside.  The  same  is  accordingly hereby set aside.

The appellant shall be paid wages for the above period  within  three  months  from  today.   His  retiral  benefits,  if  necessary, shall be re-calculated on the basis thereof, and shall  be released to him within a further period of three months.

The instant appeal is allowed in the above terms.

…....................J. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]

NEW DELHI; …....................J. DECEMBER 09, 2015. [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]

3

Page 3

3

ITEM NO.116               COURT NO.3               SECTION IV                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal  No(s).  11325/2011 SHOBHA RAM RATURI                                  Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.& ORS            Respondent(s)

Date : 09/12/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

For Appellant(s) Ms. V.S. Lakshmi, Adv.                     for Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,AOR                       For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen,Adv.                                 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

(Renuka Sadana) (Parveen Kr. Chawla)  Court Master      AR-cum-PS

[signed order is placed on the file]