f .- HIGH COURT F CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ P‘retition No. 6275 of 2005 Petitioner: Dr. Ram Swayambér Tripathi, S/o. Dr. Balmik l‘rasad Tripathi, aged about 61 yaars, Rlo. E-3, Kn'shak Nagar, The. 8:. District Raipur (C.Gr.) Versus Respondents: l. Indira Gandhi Kn'shi Vishwavidalaya, Thmugh Registrar Krishak Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Vice Chancellor, Indixa Gandhi Krishi Vishavidhalaya Krishak Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) The Dean, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishavidhalaya Krishak Nagar, Raipur{c.0.) WRIT PETITION UHDER ARTICLE 2261227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Single Bench: Horfblc Mr. Justicc Satish K. Agihotri. Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate for thc petitioncr. Shri B‘ D. Guru, Advocate for the respondents. O R D E R ( Passed 0n this 13th day of March, 2008) 1. The petitioner, while working as Professor and Head of the Department of Agrenomy College of Agriculture, Raipui‘ was traasferred on 18.8.2004 as actixig Dean in Saheed Gundadhur College of Agriculture and Research Station Kumhrawand, Jagdalpur. The transfer order dated 18.8.2004 was chaTienged by the petitioner in W.P.No. 3295/ 2004 (Dr. Ram Swoyamber ’I‘ripathi Vs. Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishavidhalay &. others). This Court vide order dated 19.7.2005 after healing leaxned counsel for tl‘le parties came to the foilowing conclusions:~ “After having considered the arguments of all the parties and . perusing records of the case, it is evident that the petitioner was transferred not as Professor but as Acting Dean Without r xx‘“ Mu / M l High Court in W.P.No. 1881 of 1986 (Ramesh Motiial Khandelwal l Vs. Zilla Parishad, AkolaP. He further relied on a decision of the {1991(8) time. em) there being any substantiw post cf Acting Daan. Admittedly, there is no post of Pmfessor in Agronomy in Shalméd Gundhaéhm" Collage of Agriculture and Reseamh Sta&on, Kumhamwand, ‘Jagdalpur. Thus, the onier dated 18.08.2004 is vitiated and the same has been paseed in malajide exercise of pewers. Accordingly, fhe Greer dated 18.08.2004 is quashed aad the wn't petition is allswed.” Accordingly, the h’ansfer Graer dated 18.8.2004 was held as vitiated and the same was quashed. In the pieceding paragraph 0f the said onier, it was observ$ that the respoadents would consider {he Iepresentatiou of the inetitioner sympametically, in accordaaee with law, for grant of sabxy. The respondents/University considered the representation of the petitioner on 1.9.2005 {Annexare P/ 10) and nejected the 1' mpresentaticn of the petitioner for grant of saiaiy for the period from 1.9.2004 to 21.7.2005. Shri Sum‘l Otwanj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the ixansfer Older dated 18.8.2004 has been quashed by this Court in W.P.No. 3295[2004 (supra) as the same was nullity and mega} and as such, the petitioner is entitled to full salary and other benefits. Themfote, even 1f the petih'oner zemained absent and failed to oomph with the illegal orders, the petitioner is entitled to fuli salary for the said. period. In support of his contention, learned counsel Ielied on a judgment and order dated 17.7. 1987, passed by the learned Division Bench of the Bombay og Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nawabkhau Abbaskhan Vs. State of Gujarati representation of fhe patih‘oner i1; the light of fhs observatisns made by this Couti in 111a order dated 19. 7.2006 passed in W.P.No. 3295/2004 , whatein it was directed to consider the same submissian of tha petitionm" that once the onier is hsld as magal the petitioucr was net mqujmd to comply with the same, he snbmjts that it may be an illegal order, the petitioner ought to have joined the said post, though, admittedly, there was no post available for the petitioner. The petitioner applied for earned leave for and thexeafter for sick leave and the same welt granted by the authorities. 5. l have heard learned counsel for the parties. and perused the pleadings and records appended themto. It is evident that the transfer order dated 18.8.2004 was held as illegal and the same ’Was quashed by this Court on 19.7.2005; The respondents/authorities prefelred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 19627] 2005 (Indira Gandhi Kn'shi Vishwavidyalaya 8t. 01‘s. Vs. Ram Swoyamher Txipathi}, the same was dismissed on 3. 10.2005. Thus, the order passed by this Court, declaring the transfer order dated 18.8.2004 as illegal attained finality. 6. This Court, daring the pendency of W.P.No. 3295/2005 granted status quo with regard to the posting, as obtained on 18.9.2004 (Anne-mire P/S). Thus, the consideration of the representation by 5mm 1974 so 1471) fhc raspondent/um‘versity is Bat in acco§anC€ with 13W, as it is well settled principk of law that once the ordm‘ has been held as magal, it is not nEcessaly to obay an order which is heki illegal and void { Sge case of Nawabkhan Abbaskhan (supra) }. 7. Lsamad Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ramesh Motilal Khandoiwal (supra) in identical facts held as undar: — petitioner is antitled to wages in his original pay scaie of i116 post of stonographar although he might have absented himself during the said period. The leave which is admissible to the petitioner cannot be adjusted during this period... The impugned order dated 20.11.1986, therefore, deserves to be set aside and it has to be held that the Zilla Parishad is liable to pay to the petitioner the wages admissible to him as if the impugned order of transfer dated 6. 12. 1985 was not. passed.” 3. I am in respectful agteemeut with the View taken of by learned Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case, cited above. 9. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case, the petitioner is entitled to payment of his salaiy from 1.9.2004 to 21.7.2905 when he remained out of job on account of illegal order dated 18.8.2004, though the petitioner was grahted earned leave and sick leave on the ground of sickness for some period. Thus the order dated 1.9.2305 (Annexute P/ 10) is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to all the benefits dowing from the quashing of the order dated 18.8. 2004. 10. in View of the foregoing, this petition stands allowed. No oider 'ast o coss t. g ‘i r we: Sw— Thakur Judge Satish K Agnih°m