RAMDAS VAIDYA Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMING payment of salary for certain period when the petitioner was prevented from working due to his premature retirement at an age earlier to the age of superannuation, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner was working in the Municipal Corporation, Sagar, as Safai Karmchari. He was appointed in the year 1963 and was a classIV employee. Petitioner was retired on the ground that he has completed the age of 60 years on 03/08/2004 vide order Annexure P/2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner file a writ petition before this Court which was registered as wherein initially an interim protection was granted on 19/08/2004 but the same was vacated on 16/12/2004, however, the petition was finally heard and decided and the petitioner was disposed of with the following directions:

(2.) AFTER the aforesaid direction was issued, petitioner was taken back in service and permitted to work upto the age of 62 years, but as full salary for the intervening period has not been granted, petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) RESPONDENTS have refuted the aforesaid and points out the petitioner has not worked from 08/11/2004 to 31/08/2006 and therefore, his claim for salary for the aforesaid period cannot be accepted and justified applying the Principle of no work no pay, it is said that apart from salary the petitioner is entitled for and is granted all the other benefits. It is stated by learned counsel for respondent that financial condition of the Corporation is not so good. It is also stated that the High Court while disposing of the writ petition having left it to the Corporation to consider and decide the representation and Municipal Corporation having exercised its discretion and having taken a justifiable decision, no further indulgence is called for. In similar circumstances, order passed in the matter of retirement of an employee working in the Municipal Corporation by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Makhanlal Sahu and others Vs. State of M.P. and others 2000(4) MPHT, 393 has been brought to the notice of this Court by Shri G.P. Singh to say that similar issue was involved in the said case also wherein the Division Bench considered the concept of treating the period on the principles of "no work no wages" and rejected similar prayer.