^m??: ^o^-Us^ ||:;£_yu 2^^4/W; "•-•-•••'-•-O^^^) r.3"*^ R^A:^ ^^r M^m^FErKwm W THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.5719/2010 PETITIONERS 1. Unionoflndia Throus RESPONDENT 10 Secretary, Department of Conununication/ Department of post, New DeUu. 2. The Post Master General, Malviya Road, Head Post Office, Raipur Dmsion, Raipiu- (C.G.) 3. The Superintendent of Post Office, ofBce of Director, Postal Services, Raipur Division, Raipiir (C.G.). 4. Senior Post Master, RaipTir, G.P.O. Division, Raipur (C.G.) 5. The Post Master General, Malviya Road, Head Post Office Raipur Division, Raipur (C.G.). 6. The Superintendent Post Office, Office of Director, Postal Services Raipur Division, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Smt. Bina Shah, wife of Shailesh Shah, Aged about 47 years, Postal Asstt. Raipur G.P.O. (C.G.) R/o. Mili Convent School, Raja Talab, Raipiu- (C.G.) ^RIT^TITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTtTUTION OF INDIA 1) PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER : As mentioned above in the cause title. -;'yA:~'i'%.. 'S'CU8 I •'ff S ^^s^^ '^'~ MGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR AP^ --A' ,lh">«lto WRIT PETITION (S) No. 5719 of2010 PETITIONERS Union oflndia & Others. RESPONDENTS Judgment for consideration VERSUS Smt. Bina Shah. Judge j'0-8-2011 Hon'Me Shri Justice Radhe Shvam Shanna ^ <^.3me-e_ Judge ^G-8-2011 £': Post for pronouncement ofthe judgment on the / day of September, 2014 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Z_J: "•" ..-..-;.-..^A._B .—A.-_. ^t- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS) No. 5719 of2010 \H3>. PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Union oflndia & Others. VERSUS Smt. Bina Shah. H WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Coram: Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, & Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shyham Sharma, JJ. Present: Shri Manish Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Farah Minhaz, Advocate for the respondent. (Delivered on ..'.>3ay ofSeptember, 201 1) Pei-SAn§HK_AGNIHOTRLJ. 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 25.05.2010 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, (for short 'the CAT') Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting, Bilaspur , whereby the CAT has directed the petitioner-Union oflndia and its authorities to pay back wages for fhe period from 26.09.2003 till 13.05,2008, wifhin a period of three months from the date of receipt ofa copy ofthe order, without interest, thereon. 2. The facts, in this case are in narrow compass, the respondent, working as Postal Assistant, was dismissed from service on 01.10.1989. Thereagainst, the respondent preferred an application before fhe CAT in O.A. No. 849/2000. The CAT,by order dated 26.09.2003 (Annexure P/2) allowed the application modifying the order passed by the Disciplmary Authority to the extent that the disciplinary authority would pass a fresh order which can be any other penalty other than removal or dismissal from service, the applicant would reimburse the department all the monetary losses :^—;-s ^y ^ — - -^" _ -• -_T-_L*- ^Y. n =fc==a-.-.-jl- ''•- ^*'- ^-., '^, ^ s .••?? ,^^^^.^M^ during the period she was out ofjob.. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred a petition before this Court, being W.P. No. 1337/2004. A Division Bench, vide order dated 02.01.2008 (Annexure P/3) dismissed the petition holdmg that the authorities had no other option except to allow the respondent No. 1 therem, to work. It appears that several representations were made by the respondent herein, however, ultimately, in compliance ofthe order passed by the High Court, as aforestated, the respondent was reinstated in service on 13.05.2008. The representations preferred by the respondent on 28.08.2008 and 27.09.2008, for grant of arrears of wages from 26.09.2003 till date, was rejected by order dated 27.09.2008 (Annexure P/5). Thereagainst, the respondent approached the CAT again by filing an application, being O.A. No. 135/2009 (Annexure P/6). The CAT, after having considered all the aspects ofthe matter, came to the conclusion that the petitioner authorities have failed to comply with the order of the CAT which was confirmed by the Higfi Court. The said order of reinstatement was passed on 13.05.2008, after modifying the imposition of punishment to the extent of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect for a period ofthree years. Thus, the respondent was held as entitled to back wages for the period &om26.9.2003 till 13.5.2008. Contention of Shri Sharma, leamed counsel for the petitioner, is that the normal mle is that there should be no pay for no work. Since the respondent had not worked during the period, .as 1) 2_ 8. ^) aforestated, she was not entitled to any benefit. It was farther contended that fhere was no order ofreinstatement. On the other hand, Ms. Farah Minhaz, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent, would submit that it is also a general principle that if the removal has been found illegal, grant of back wages must follow. In support of her contention, she relies on a decision ofthe Supreme Court in Manorama Verma (Smt) v. State ofBihar & Others . The question, which arises for consideration before the CAT as well as this Court, is that asto when the petitioners, herein, have failed to comply with the order passed by the CAT, which was ultimately confirmed by the Division Bench of this Coiirt and the relief granted by the CAT and confirmed by the High Court was granted after a period of about five years, whether the employee is entitled to arrears ofwages for the said period. There is no doubt that the petitioner authorities have taken their own time in not complying with the order. There was no stay ofthe order passed by the CAT during pendency of the writ petition before this Court, against the order dated 26.09.2003 (Aimexure P/2). Further, this Court has held in its order dated 02.01.2008 that the petitioner authorities had no option but to allow the respondent to work as no interim order was granted. The relevant portion of the order dated 02.01.2008 (Annexure P/3) reads as under: "Leamed counsel for the respondent No. 1 had drawn our attention to the fact that though the judgment of the Tribunal was pronounced on 26.09.2003, aggrieved by the same this petition was filed and no 1994Supp(3)SCC,671 interim order was granted by this Court, ''(^(6 inspite ofthe same, respondent No. 1 has not been allowed to work though on several occasions she requested inter alia for the work to be allotted to her. We are of the considered opinion that the authorities had no other option except to allow respondent No. 1 to work." 9. In fhe instant case, the CAT by order dated 26.9.2003, without quashing the order of removal, modified the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority directing the disciplinary authority to pass a fi-esh order, which can be any other penalty other than removal or dismissal &om service. The employee was dkected to reimburse all fhe monetary losses suffered by the department and further the employee would not claim any arrears during the period she was outside the job. The order of removal was not quashed and further there was no direction to reinstate the employee forthwith. 10. Thereagainst, a writ petition was filed before this Court, being W.P. No. 1337 of 2004 (The Senior Superintendent of Post & Others v. Smt. Bina Shah & Another). In the said petition, no interim reliefwas granted. Thus, the petitioner authorities ought to have complied with the order passed by the CAT. However, they did not comply with the order till this Court by order dated 2.2.2008 (Annexure - P/3) affirmed the order passed by the CAT. 11. It is a case of non-compliance ofthe order dated 26.9.2003 passed by the CAT within a reasonable time, but the eompliance was done after the High Court passed the order affirming the order. On 13.5.2008 the employee was reinstated modifying the penalty Jfc ^—I—t. ^r 0. ^l— withholding one year's increment with cumulative e^Hecffor three years. Thus, it is a case of modification of disproportionate punishment imposed earlier. 12. Reliance of Ms. Farah Minhaz on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Manorama Verma (Smt), Ku. Sarita Thakur v. Union of India & Another2, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. B.Vikram Reddy3 and Union of India & Others v. P.K.Kuttappan , is not relevant to the facts ofthe case, as in all the aforestated cases, the removal was quashed and order ofreinstatement was passed. The employer failed to comply with the order ofreinstatement. Thus, direction to pay back wages was passed. 13. It is well settled proposition of law, as aforestated, that ifthere is no stay ofthe order passed by the CAT, the authorities were under an obligation to comply with the order within a reasonable time. In the case on hand, though the writ petition was preferred before this Court, however, no interim reliefwas granted to the petitioners and ultimately, by order dated 02.01.2008 (Annexure P/3), the petition was dismissed, confirming ofthe order ofthe CAT. 14. The impugned order passed by the CAT is not in accordance with the well settled proposition of law, if there was no direction for reinstatement, the back wages could not have been granted for delay in complying with the order dated 26.9.2003 passed by the CAT. 15. It is evident that the order was complied with within reasonable time after dismissal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner 21994 Supp (2) SCC 395 3 (2003) 11 SCC570 4 (2007) 10 SCC 721 authorities, by this Court. On the ground of laxity and irresponsible conduct of the authority in not complying with the order passed by the CAT, within reasonable time, the employee (respondent herein) is at the most entitled to cost, not the back wages. 16. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the order dated 25.5.2010 (Annexure - P/l) passed by the CAT is modified to the above extent. The petitioner authorities are directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to fhe employee for causing delay in compliance ofthe order dated 26.9.2003 passed by the CAT, within a period offour weeks. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- R.S.Sharma Judge !>-, Amit ! ' I" \^