UNION OF INDIA Vs. MANGAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has impugned the order dated 29th April, 2008 of Central administrative Tribunal in O. A No. 1124/2007, Mangal Singh v. Union of India and ors directing the petitioner to grant benefits of pay and allowance to the respondent for the period 17th June, 2000 to 3rd September, 2006 and setting aside the order dated 28th September, 2006 to the extent of not granting TRCA (time related continuity allowance) for the period 17th June, 2000 to 3rd september, 2006 on the ground that the respondent had not worked, relying on principle of `no work no pay'.

(2.) THE petitioner has contended that since the notional reinstatement was given to the petitioner with retrospective effect, he is not entitled to back wages on the principle of no work no pay and grant of back wages is not automatic. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gangwani also very emphatically contended that the appointment of the respondent was a short term arrangement, as a substitute EDDA of a regular incumbent. It is asserted that the respondent was selected provisionally as SC candidate and the action of the ACPO to form a panel of appointment against the post falling vacant subsequently was not in conformity with the recruitment rules of EDDA and method of recruitment was not regular, and since the respondent was given provisional appointment, his appointment was not as a regular appointment and was only a substitute and he had no right to join on regular basis and consequently the respondent shall also be not entitled for back wages.

(3.) THE plea of the petitioner is contested by the respondent contending, inter-alia, that the respondent had been selected against the vacancy reserved for SC candidate, however, he was wrongly shown as selected provisionally. The respondent also refuted the averment made by the petitioner that respondent was appointed as a substitute and reliance is placed on a judgment dated 1st March, 2002 in O. A No. 292/2001 filed by the respondent which was allowed by order dated 1st March, 2002 and the petitioners were directed to regularize the respondent as EDDA within a period of three months. While directing the petitioners to regularize the respondent the tribunal had held that the respondent was appointed after fulfillment of the pre appointment formalities and there was nothing on record to suggest that his appointment was as a substitute. Reliance has also been placed by the respondent on a writ petition filed against the order dated 1st March, 2002 in o. A No. 292/2001, Sh. Mangal Singh v. Union of India and Ors which was disposed of by order dated 9th May, 2006 in W. P (C) No. 3338/2002 holding that the petitioners have not been able to show any document that the appointment of the respondent was as a substitute and, therefore, no fault was found with the order of the Tribunal dated 1st March, 2002 directing the petitioners to appoint the respondent on a regular basis as EDDA.