JASWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-Jaswinder Singh has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the impugned order dtd. 10/3/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in review application filed by appellant, whereby prayer made by appellant for modifying the original order dtd. 21/11/2019 to the extent of awarding him actual pay for the entire period of second extension when he was not permitted to work, has been declined on the principle of "no work no pay."

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant was ready and willing to work for the entire second extension period granted to him beyond the age of superannuation, but he was not permitted to work on account of wrong orders passed by the respondents and thus, appellant was entitled for grant of actual pay benefits for the period when he was not permitted to work. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shobha Ram Raturi Versus Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and others (Civil Appeal No. 11325 of 2011 decided on 9/12/2015) as well as a Single Judge judgment of this Court in Suraj Mai Versus State of Haryana and others, 2014(2) SCT246.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent - State, who is on advance notice, has argued that the impugned order dtd. 10/3/2021 does not suffer from any illegality as the appellant cannot be held entitled to actual pay benefits for a period when he had not worked, especially when it was a case of working on second extension beyond the age of superannuation, which is completely discretionary. Hence, prayer has been made for dismissal of appeal.