IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 13324 of 2006 RANJIT PRASAD Versus THE TILKA MANJHI UNIVERSITY & ORS ----------- 3 14.05.2008 The petitioner was undisputedly appointed as a Laboratory Incharge in the Department of Physics on ad hoc basis alongwith other employees on 28.07.1988 on daily wages. In anticipation of formalities being completed, he was posted in TNB College, Bhagalpur under the Tilkamanjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. By order dated 28.03.1998, petitioner was suspended. His suspension continued without framing of any charge or initiating any departmental proceedings. Petitioner moved this Court by filing CWJC No 3425 of 2000 which was ultimately allowed on 12.04.2005 and the order of suspension was quashed but departmental proceedings, if any, pending were not interfered with. Thereafter, the petitioner represented to the University for payment of his dues for the period of suspension when he was prevented from working by the University. When there was no response from the University, the petitioner filed the present writ application claiming for payment for the period under which he was wrongly put under suspension. University has appeared and filed a counter affidavit in which these facts have not been disputed. What is said is that pursuant to orders of this Court quashing the suspension, he was allowed to work as usual from 23.08.1998 and as he did not do any work in the period of his suspension that is between 28.03.1998 to 19.06.2005, he was not entitled to any remuneration whatsoever. In the 2 same very counter affidavit, it is stated that the Principal of TNB College was directed to conclude the enquiry and submit the enquiry report to the University. On report being submitted, the Vice Chancellor considered the report and passed final order of punishment being stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and censure. Admittedly, no order was passed forfeiting his remuneration for the period of suspension. Petitioner claims that as suspension had been set aside and as a matter of final punishment remuneration for the period of suspension was not ordered to be forfeited, the same is liable to be paid. To the contrary, University submits that as petitioner was on daily wages and no work was taken, he was not entitled to any wages. Heard the parties and with their consent, this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. In my view, the contention on behalf of the University is wholly misconceived and cannot be accepted. A person may be a permanent employee being paid on daily wages. A daily wager is a person whose work starts in the morning and ends in the evening. In those cases, there is no scope for any suspension and/or departmental proceedings for taking disciplinary action because at the end of the day, there is no contractual relationship of master and servant surviving. This is not so in cases of ad hoc employees. They may have no right to be regularized but they do have a right to be remunerated. Here the contract of an employee was not terminated. It was merely suspended. Petitioner was ready to work but University prevented him from working. In such a situation when the suspension order was quashed by 3 this Court and when in the departmental proceedings, no order with regard to forfeiture of remuneration during the period of suspension was passed rather the Vice Chancellor passed an order withholding of two increments, denial of remuneration for the period of suspension would be wholly arbitrary and cannot be sustained. I may further note that if the petitioner is treated stricto senso a daily wager then no departmental proceedings whatsoever could have been initiated for departmental proceedings are adjunct of a master-servant relationship existing. If he was a daily wager, in that sense, then at the end of the day, the relationship ceases to exist and no such proceeding could at all be initiated nor an order of reinstatement passed nor an order of censure passed nor an order of stopping two increments with cumulative effect passed. All these facts show that petitioner was an ad hoc employee which is not in dispute and was prevented by the University by virtue of the suspension order from working. For University stopped him from working, University cannot take advantage of that action and deprive the petitioner of his legitimate dues. Consequently, the writ application is allowed. The University is directed to make payment of the petitioner’s remuneration within a period of one month from today. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)