RSA No.2544 of 1998 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2544 of 1998 Date of Decision: 6.11.2008 State of Haryana and another .....Appellants Vs. Fateh Chand ....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.Lekh Raj Nandlal, AAG,Haryana for the appellants. Mr.R.S. Sailani, Advocate for the respondent. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The State of Haryana challenges judgements and decrees, passed by the Additional Civil Judge-I, (Senior Division), Hisar dated 30.1.1997 and the Additional District Judge,Hisar dated 12.1.1998 decreeing the suit filed by the respondent and dismissing their appeal. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit praying for a declaration that he is entitled to receive pension, gratuity, leave encashment, increments, seniority, basic pay scale etc. with effect from February 1985 to 30.3.1993 and in addition to receive pay for the period 1.8.1987 to 8.3.1990. The State of Haryana, filed a written statement denying the averments in the plaint by asserting that the plaintiff-respondent was engaged as a Block Publicity worker at a fixed remuneration of Rs.400/- p.m. His services were terminated in July 1987 with effect from 31.7.1987 RSA No.2544 of 1998 2 but in view of various orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he and other adhoc employees were reinstated vide order dated 2.3.1990. Thereafter his services were regularised pursuant to directions issued in CWP No.5407 of 1994 decided on 21.9.1994 and a policy dated 27.5.1993. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues :- “1. “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed, as alleged, if so, to what extent” ? OPP. 2. “Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable” ? OPD. 3. “Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC” ? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit” ? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit” ? OPD. 6. Relief.” After considering the dispute, the trial Court decreed the suit in its entirety. Aggrieved by the judgement, the State of Haryana filed an appeal. The District Judge, Hisar dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the appellants confines his arguments to a plea that as admittedly the respondent has not served the department from 1.8.1987 to 18.3.1990, the Courts below misconstrued the directions issued in CWP No.5407 of 1994 decided on 21.9.1994 and granted wages for this period. The appellants were only directed to consider the period from 1.8.1987 to RSA No.2544 of 1998 3 18.3.1990, as qualifying service for the purpose of regularisation and as no relief was claimed or directions issued for grant of wages for the said period, the Courts below erred while granting salary for the above period. Counsel for the respondent, submits that as the above period was counted towards service, while calculating eligibility for regularisation, the Courts below rightly held that the respondent is entitled to receive salary etc. for this period. It is further submitted that as no question of law arises for consideration, the appeal be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgements and decrees, as also the record. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration :- 1. “Whether the respondent is entitled to receive salary for the period,he admittedly did not serve the department.?” The respondent's services were admittedly terminated on 27.7.1987 with effect from 31.7.1987. He was reinstated on 19.3.1990 and admittedly did not serve the department from 31.7.1987 to 19.3.1990. The respondent thereafter, filed CWP No.5407 of 1994 titled as Fateh Chand and another V. State of Haryana and another, praying that though he had been reinstated, his services were not being regularised. Upon a consideration of the dispute, the writ was allowed and the following order was passed :- “As per these instructions the adhoc or a daily wage employee who had completed five years of service as on RSA No.2544 of 1998 4 31.3.1993 is entitled to have his services regularised. It is true that the petitioners on being reinstated after their writ petitions were allowed by this Court had not completed five years of service but their service is to be counted not from the date when they were reinstated but from the date of their initial appointment as their orders of termination were set aside by this Curt. In this view of the matter, they have all completed more than five years of service as on 31.3.1993 and we, therefore, direct the respondents to regularise their services.” A perusal of the above extract from the order dated 21.9.1994 leaves no manner of doubt that no prayer was made or direction issued that wages be paid for the period in dispute. The appellants were only directed to consider the period from 1.8.1987 to 18.3.1990 for calculating qualifying service for the purpose of regularisation. The Courts below have, however, held held that as the respondent was reinstated and his services were regularised, he can not be denied wages and other benefits for the above period. In my considered opinion, the Courts below fell into error as they misconstrued the order dated 21.9.1994. All that this Court directed was to count the period of absence towards service while computing qualifying service, for the purpose of regularisation. The order did not direct grant wages whether, specifically or by intent. The right to receive remuneration flows from an obligation to work. Mere reinstatement does not by itself confer a right to receive remuneration. The judgements referred to by the Courts below arise from situations where reinstatement was ordered RSA No.2544 of 1998 5 pursuant to an illegal termination of service. In the present case, the respondent was reinstated and his services were regularised pursuant to orders passed by this Court and on the basis of a policy of regularisation framed by the appellants. The only relief claimed and granted in CWP No.5407 of 1994 was that the period of absence be counted towards service, while computing qualifying service, for the purpose of regularisation. Payment of wages was neither the intent nor the import of the order. The respondent has admittedly not worked for the period from 1.8.1987 to 18.3.1990 and would, therefore, not be entitled to any remuneration for this period or any other benefit accruing thereon and the question of law framed by counsel for the appellants is answered by holding that as the respondent did not serve the department from 1.8.1987 to 18.3.1990, the Courts below committed an error in decreeing his suit for wages for this period. In view of what has been held herein above, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgements and decrees dated 30.1.1997 and 12.1.1998 passed by the Courts below are partly modified and it is held that the respondent would not be entitled to any salary for the period from 1.8.1987 to 18.3.1990. No order as to costs. 6.11.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE