CWP No. 12406 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CWP No. 12406 of 2010 Date of decision: 07.09.2011 Rajender Singh ........ Petitioner Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others.....Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondents -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. Petitioner herein is seeking direction for the release of arrears o salary w.e.f. 17.02.2003 to 13.08.2004. Civil Writ Petition No. 3459 of 1998 filed by the petitioner challenging his termination order dated 07.03.2000 as well as seeking regularisation of his service was allowed vide judgement dated 17.02.2003. The termination order was set aside and the petitioner was ordered to be regularised with all consequential except the back wages from the date of termination till the passing of the judgement dated 17.02.2003 allowing the aforesaid writ petition. The respondent filed Special Leave Petition bearing CWP No. 12406 of 2010 2 No. 6417 of 2004 against the said judgement. However, the said SLP was dismissed on 05.07.2004. Despite that, the petitioner was not allowed to join his duties and was forced to file contempt petition. Thereafter, the respondent immediately allowed the petitioner to join his duties and the aforesaid contempt petition was accordingly disposed of. Finally, the respondents regularised the services of the petitioner on 17.08.2004 but did not pay the arrears from 17.02.2003 i.e. the date when CWP No. 3459 of 1998 was allowed by the High Court till the date the petitioner was allowed to join his duties and was regularised on 17.08.2004. Respondents filed their written statement. Learned counsel for the respondents while vehemently opposing the prayer of the petitioner submitted that :- a) the petitioner is not entitled back wages for the period claimed by him as he was not worked for the said period and as per law 'no work no pay' can be granted. b) He was offered the service as part time but he did not join the same and as such, he is not entitled for the relief claimed. c) Lastly, his contempt petition was dismissed. Hence the petitioner is not entitled for the wages; and Heard. The operative part of the judgement dated 17.02.2003 passed in CWP No. 3459 of 1998 reads as under: “ After hearing Shri Sanjay Mittal, learned counsel for the petitiones, I find force that the judgements of two Division Bench relied upon by the petitioners support the case of the petitioners. Therefore, the writ Petition is allowed in the same terms and a direction is issued CWP No. 12406 of 2010 3 to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners on the posts of Cook and Washerman. The orders Annexure P7 and Annexure P8 terminating the services of the petitioners are set aside. The petitioners shall be entitled to all consequential benefits except the back wages from the date of termination till today. The petitioners shall report for duty to respondents within one week. Writ Petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.” It is evident from the perusal of the above that the said Writ Petition was allowed with specific direction that the service of the petitioner should be regularised with all consequential benefits except back wages from the date of the termination till the date of passing of the judgement dated 17.02.2003. As such, (a) the petitioner was entitled to be regularised from the date of the passing of the judgement dated 17.02.2003 ini CWP No. 3459 of 1998 (b) the petitioner was entitled to the benefits from the date of passing of the said judgement dated 17.02.2003. The arguments that the petitioner himself did not join the duties and therefore, did not comply with the part of the directions issued to him vide judgement dated 17.02.2003, cannot be sustained in view of the averments made in para 9 of the written statement. As per para 9 of the written statement “the petitioner did not report for the duty within one week as per Hon'ble High Court orders and he was offered a service as part time but did not join so he is not entitled for the relief he claimed” gives away the conduct of the respondents. A specific direction was issued to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner on the post of Cook and Washerman, whereas, the respondents, admittedly, offered him the CWP No. 12406 of 2010 4 services as part time. Thus, the petitioner cannot be blamed for not joining his duties on the terms and conditions which were in violation of the judgement dated 17.02.2003 passed in CWP 3459 of 1998. In case, the petitioner was taken back as a regular employee as per the directions given in judgement dated 17.02.2003, the question of the petitioner not joining would not have arisen. Therefore, the argument that the petitioner is not entitled to any arrears from the date of judgement till he was actually allowed to join on regular basis as he did not work for the said period, has no merit in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The respondents cannot take advantage of their own wrong. Lastly, the contempt petition was disposed of as the respondents meanwhile allowed the petitioner to join his duty and his service. Disposal of the contempt petition does not mean that the petitioner cannot claim the remaining consequential benefits arising out of the order regularising his services in pursuance to the judgement dated 17.02.2003 passed in CWP 3459 of 1998 to which he is entitled. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the arrears of salary to the petitioner w.e.f. 17.02.2003, the date when CWP No. 3459 of 1998 was allowed by the High Court till the order regularising the service of the petitioner. Allowed in the above terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 07.09.2011 mohan