UNION OF INDIA Vs. JAI PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges validity of an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

(2.) A perusal of the impugned order shows, inter alia, that the application of respondent No. 1 claiming payment of salary for the period 4.3.1979 to 26.8.1993 has been allowed on a finding that it is no doubt correct that the civil court has not specifically directed payment of salary but once the termination order of the applicant has been declared to be illegal, void and in-operative and there has been no material on record to show that he was gainfully employed during the period in question, he is entitled for the back wages for the period in question as the principles of 'No work no pay' will not be applicable to his case for the reason because he was willing to work but was kept away from work for no fault of his own and that he is deemed to have worked during that period.

(3.) Shri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Shri Punni Lal and others, JT 1996 (9) SC 740, contended that since no claim for arrears of salary having been made before the civil court, the principles enshrined under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly applies and should not have been granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal and it has committed an apparent error of law in allowing the claim of respondent No. 1 in relation to arrears of salary.