RAM SHARIK SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who retired from service as Forest Guard on 31-12-2004, had approached the State Administrative Tribunal on 13-10-1997 by way of Original Application assailing therein the communication letter dated 12-9-97 (Annexure P-10) issued by respondent No. 3, Divisional Forest Officer informing him that his claim for back wages was considered in compliance with the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Gariyaband, in Civil Suit No. 2-A/85 and has been rejected on the principle of "no work no pay".

(2.) A thumbnail sketch of the turn of events is necessary for disposal of the present petition.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that after passing of the judgment and decree dated 13-4-1988 by the Trial Court, the petitioner approached the department for giving him permission to join his duties but the department adamantly refused the petitioner to do so on the pretext of appeal having been preferred against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Ultimately after the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was affirmed by the Tribunal vide order dated 24-9-93 the petitioner was permitted to join his duties on 21-2-94 as Forest Guard. According to the COUNSEL for the petitioner even after a consistent and persistent request made by the petitioner for permitting him to join his duties and release his back wages in the light of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, instead of taking any positive view of the matter, the department straightaway informed the petitioner by a communication letter dated 12-9-97 that a decision had already been taken by the respondent No. 1 on 4-5-94 whereby he has been held as disentitled for the back wages claimed by him for the period 10-6-81 to 20-2-94. He further submits that the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of hearing in compliance of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the decision taken by the respondent No. 1 regarding denial of back wages to the petitioner is a unilateral one and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for back wages right from the date from which the petitioner allegedly absented from his duties for the reason that his termination for his alleged unauthorized absence has been set aside by the Trial Court which ultimately came to be affirmed by the Tribunal in an appeal preferred by the department. COUNSEL for the petitioner laid much stress on the point that the petitioner was not engaged in any gainful employment after his termination from services; rather he kept himself under the disposal of the authorities concerned to oblige him by giving joining in compliance of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Thus, in totality the argument of the petitioner is that under no circumstance the petitioner can be denied the grant of back wages following the principle of "no work no pay".