STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. PARKASH KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Punjab is in appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide which suit of the plaintiff-respondent for declaration to the effect that she is still in continuous service of the defendant as a clerk in I Girls Punjab Battalion N.C.C., Amritsar and as a consequential relief that she is entitled to be paid all the wages, benefits and emoluments, attached to the post w.e.f. Ist of November, 1981 till payment after setting-aside the judgment dated 22nd December, 1986 passed by Sub-Judge Ist Class, Amritsar, by which the suit of the plaintiff respondent was dismissed. The plaintiff has also filed cross- objections wherein the claim is for grant of interest at the rate of 12 per cent on the arrears of pay for which she had been held to be entitled to by the first Appellate Court.

(2.) The plaintiff, by her suit, sought declaration to the effect that she be held to be in continuous service and the action to the respondent in not permitting her to join the duties on the basis of the resignation alleged to have been submitted by the plaintiff be held to be wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The proved facts of the case go to show that plaintiff came in service of defendant in 1966 and was working in Punjab Battalion N.C.C., Amritsar and vide order dated 15th March, 1981, she was ordered to be transferred to Khalsa College N.C.C., Amritsar. Inasmuch as the plaintiff styled the said order of transfer being against relevant rules and passed simply by way of punishment, she in point of time first challenged the said order, by means of declaratory suit in Civil Court at Amritsar and vide Ex. P1 the Sub-Judge on 9th November, 1981 directed the parties to maintain status- quo. It may be mentioned here that it is an admitted case between the parties that by the time aforesaid order came to be passed, plaintiff had not been relieved from the place from where she was transferred and that the aforesaid order was passed after notice to the opposite party. The plaintiff submitted her joining report on 10th November, 1981 in Punjab Battalion N.C.C., Amritsar from where she was transferred and had not been relieved and admittedly the said report was diarised by dealing clerk. She was not permitted to join the duty. Thereafter the plaintiff made several attempts to join duty and in that behalf she made various representations seeking permission to join as also to be entitled to pay w.e.f. 1st November, 1981 but she was not permitted to join. It is after serving notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code that she filed the instant suit. The matter was contested by the respondent- Punjab State and the plaintiff was confronted with the resignation said to have been submitted by her on 4th June, 1982 which was stated to have been accepted retrospective on 31st October, 1981. It is on the basis of the aforesaid resignation having been duly accepted as per the case of the appellant- Punjab State that she was not permitted to join the duty and as per the case of the appellant she is not entitled to any back-wages, etc. With regard to her earlier suit it was mentioned that the same was dismissed by the trial Court and even an appeal carried against the said judgment and decree, fate of the suit remained the same. On pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed following issues :-

(3.) Mrs. Charu Tuli, AAG, Punjab appearing for the appellant-State vehemently contends that the first Appellate Court clearly erred by holding that resignation submitted by the plaintiff-respondent was not proved to have been signed by her as in any case there could not be any intention on the part of the officers/officials dealing with the matter to forge the resignation on behalf of the plaintiff, particular when no case of mala fide has been made out either against any one in particular or collectively against the persons dealing with the case of the plaintiff. The alternative contention of the learned counsel for the State is that once there is complete justification for not permitting the plaintiff to attend to her duty after her resignation was accepted, then even if the resignation is to be held in valid on account of some technicalities, the plaintiff is not entitled to any back wages on the principle of 'no work no pay'. Mr. Mahajan, appearing for the plaintiff- respondent, on the contrary refutes the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant and contends that once the parties have led evidence with regard to crucial question of the plaintiff having or not having submitted her resignation and the same has been held to have not been submitted by the plaintiff on the basis of overwhelming circumstantial, oral and documentary evidence, then the question of intention of mala fides totally pales into insignificance. In any case, contends the counsel that even if the resignation is held to have been tendered by the plaintiff there is ample evidence on the record to demonstrate beyond doubt that by various representation made to the petitioner for permitting her to join and for monthly salary resignation even if submitted the same shall be deemed to have been withdrawn prior to its acceptance and in the said circumstances the attitude of the appellant-State not even thereafter to permit the plaintiff-respondent to work against the post and not to pay her the emoluments, would be totally unjustified and arbitrary. Once it is proved on the record of the case that the plaintiff was not permitted to join duties and was prevented to work against the post on which she was prevented by a deliberate, illegal and unauthorised action of the respondent, the principle of 'no work no pay' would not be attracted and, therefore, she would be entitled to all back wages and that too with interest.