IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 5958/2008 Reserved on: 16.6.2010 Decided on:21.6. 2010 _____________________________________________ Ved Parkash Sharma. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that petitioner was appointed as Junior Basic Trained Teacher on 21.10.1961. His name was recommended by the State Government for National Award, 1995. He made representation to the respondents on 6.2.1996 to allow him to continue in service till the decision of the Central Government was received. Petitioner received a communication dated 2.8.1996 from the Under Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development Department 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 of Education informing him about his selection for National Award, 1995. A similar communication was sent to him by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary vide Annexure A-2. Petitioner was given the National Award by the President of India on 5.9.1996. He made representation to the Secretary (Education) on 9.9.1996 to allow him to continue in service for additional period of two years. Petitioner received a copy of letter dated 26.11.1996 addressed by Joint Secretary (Education) to the Director of Education whereby Director of Education was directed to allow the petitioner to continue in service. The District Primary Education Officer took 1½ month to implement the orders. Petitioner was permitted to rejoin his duties on 16.1.1997. It will be apt at this stage to reproduce the text of letter dated 21.12.1996, which reads thus: “Copy of letter No. EDN-C-B(10)-2/96, dated 26.11.1996 from Joint Secretary (Education) to the Government of H.P. received through Director of Pry. Education vide his letter No. Shiksha-h-(II) (Pry)-3-7/92 dated 29.11.96. : : : : : Subject : Normal retirement after 60 years in r/o Shri Ved Parkash Sharma Centre Head Teacher (Retired) I am directed to refer to your letter No. Shiksha-II (Pry) 3-7/92 dated 22.11.96 on the subject cited above and to say that it is not a cause of extension in service but a case of normal retirement after 60 years. Therefore you are advised that the case may be decided as per Govt. decision and Shri Ved Parkash Sharma may be allowed to continue in service and he may be asked to refund all pensionary benefits received by him alongwith interest. The A.G. may be asked to revise his P.P.O. and the period of absence 3 from 29.2.96 till he resumes duty may be considered to be condoned under the Rules with the approval of competent authority. The service Book and Halfia Byan alongwith enclosures are returned herewith in original. ……… Endst. No. EDN-U (ES-I) 1/86-3402-03. Office of the District Primary Education Officer, Una (H.P.). Dated 21.12.1996 A copy alongwith S/Book of Shri Ved Parkash Sharma retired Centre Head Teacher is forwarded to the BPEO, Amb for information and n/a. All the pensionary benefits with interest may be recovered from Sh. Ved Parkash Sharma and be deposited into Govt. Treasury and a copy of Treasury challan may be sent to this office for further n/a alongwith his S/Book. An entry to this effect that total amount of pensionary benefits refunded by Sh. Ved Parkash Sharma has been deposited into Govt. Try vide challan No……….Dated…….may also be recorded in the S/Book. 2. The Director of Pry Education, H.P. Shimla with reference to his letter No. referred to above for favour of information pl.” 2. It will be pertinent to mention at this stage that petitioner vide office order dated 14.1.1997 was directed to deposit the retiral benefits with interest. Office order dated 14.1.1997 reads thus: “In compliance with the orders of Joint Secretary (Edu) to the Govt. of H.P. No. EDN-C-B(10)-2/96 dated 26.11.1996 and Director of Primary Education, H.P. Shimla-1 Endst. No. Shiksha-H (11) (Pry)-3-7/92 dated 4 29.11.96, Sh. Ved Parkash Sharma, Centre Head Teacher (retired) is hereby allowed to continue in service at G.P.S. Dhamandary (Amb) against vacancy as a case of normal retirement till 60 years subject to depositing the whole amount of interest on all pensionary benefits received by him.” 3. Petitioner made representations on 14.3.1997 and 21.10.1997 seeking condonation of period of absence from service with effect from 1.3.1996 to 15.3.1997. The Block Primary Education Officer sought certain clarifications on 9.3.1998. In the meantime, the petitioner deposited interest amounting to Rs. 4209/- and 3620/- on 22.8.1997 and 26.8.1997. He retired after attaining the age of 60 years on 28.2.1998. He made another representation on 16.3.1998 for treating the period with effect from 1.3.1996 to 15.1.1997 as duty being National Awardee. The District Primary Education Officer, Una has also taken up the case of the petitioner with Director of Primary Education on 21.4.1998. The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 6.3.1999 that the Governor, Himachal Pradesh was pleased to order the period of absence with effect from 1.3.1996 to 15.1.1997 to be counted as qualifying service for granting pension to the petitioner under rule 27 and 28 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. This period was treated as extra ordinary leave with effect from 1.3.1996 to 15.1.1997. 4. Mr. K.D. Shreedhar has strenuously argued that once the petitioner has been awarded National Award, he was required to be permitted to continue for a period of two years beyond the 5 age of 58 years. He then contended that the decision of the respondent-State not to pay the petitioner salary with effect from 1.3.1996 to 15.1.1997 and releasing death-cum-retirement gratuity, leave encashment and GIS saving funds were liable to be paid with interest @ 12%. 5. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has strenuously argued that since the petitioner has not worked with effect from 1.3.1996 to 15.1.1997, he was not entitled to get the salary on the principle of “no work no pay”. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 7. Petitioner’s name stood recommended by the State Government for awarding National Award taking into consideration his meritorious career. Case of the petitioner was taken up by the State Government in the month of March/April, 1995 with the Government of India. Petitioner made representation on 6.2.1996 that since his case has been recommended by the State Government for National Award, 1995, he may be permitted to continue to work as a Teacher. However, without looking into his representation, he was retired on 29.2.1996. The Government of India conveyed decision to the petitioner that he has been selected for National Award vide Annexure A-1 dated 2.8.1996. He was also informed by the State Government. He was awarded the National Award by the President of India on 5.9.1996. 8. It is not in dispute that the Teachers, who are National Awardee, are permitted to work for another two years beyond the 6 age of 58 years. Once the communication dated 2.8.1996 had been received by the respondent-State, petitioner was required to be called for to rejoin his duties as a Teacher. However, it was only on 16.1.1997 that petitioner was permitted to rejoin his duties at Government Primary School, Dhamandhary (Amb). However, he was asked to deposit the retiral benefits with interest @ 12 %. He took up the matter with the respondent-State. However, as a matter of fact, he was made to deposit a sum of Rs. 4209 and 3620 with interest @ 12%. Petitioner made several representations for condoning the period of absence of service with effect from 1.3.1996 to 15.1.1997. The matter was taken up by the Block Primary Education Officer and District Primary Education Officer with the Director of Education. It is only vide Annexure A-14 dated 6.3.1999 that the decision was taken to count the period of absence with effect from 1.3.1996 to 15.1.1997 as qualifying service for granting pension to the petitioner under rule 27 and 28 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and this period was directed to be treated as extra ordinary leave. He retired on 28.2.1998. The DCRG was released to him in the month of September, 1998. Leave encashment and GIS saving fund were released in his favour on 17.5.1999 and 8.6.1999, respectively. His one annual increment was also withheld arbitrarily without any justification. The Court is of the considered view that once the petitioner has been awarded National Award and has been permitted to rejoin his duties with effect from 16.1.1997, the period with effect from 1.3.1996 to 15.1.1997 was required to be 7 regularized for all intents and purposes and this period was required to be treated on duty. Petitioner was always ready and willing to work as a Teacher and he had already made representation to permit him to work as per representation dated 6.2.1996 since the Government of India was seized of the matter. However, he was retired on 29.2.1996. The decision, as noticed above, was taken on 2.8.1996 and the petitioner was given the National Award by the President of India on 5.9.1996. There was laxity on the part of the respondent-State and he was permitted to rejoin his duties only on 16.1.1997. The decision of the respondent-State to ask the petitioner, as per Annexure A-5, to deposit the retiral benefits with interest @ 12% was also arbitrary. Respondent-State has not given any justification why the petitioner was made to pay back the retiral benefits, that too, with interest @ 12%. When the petitioner was directed to deposit the retiral benefits, he has to deposit this amount @ 12%. However, when the DCRG, leave encashment and GIS saving fund were released to him, the same were not paid with interest @12 %. The DCRG was paid after seven months, i.e. September, 1998 and the leave encashment and GIS saving fund were released on 17.5.1999 and 8.6.1999. These amounts also did not carry interest at all. 9. The decision of the respondent-State not to pay the salary to the petitioner with effect from 1.3.1996 to 15.1.1997 was arbitrary. The principle of ‘no work no pay’ is not applicable in this case. Petitioner was always ready and willing to work and in fact he had rejoined his duties on 16.1.1997. The purpose of awarding 8 National Award is to recognize the services of the teachers, who are extraordinarily meritorious. Once a decision is taken to give National Award, the benefits accruing therefrom must be taken to its logical end. In this case, respondents have not treated the petitioner in a just and fair manner. The Court is dealing with a case of teacher, who has been awarded National Award, but has been made to run from pillar to post seeking his rejoining and thereafter asking him to deposit the retiral benefits @ 12%. Respondents ought to have regularized the entire period with effect from 1.3.1996 to 15.1.1997 on duty instead of treating this period as extraordinary leave, as per Annexure A-14. 10. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to give full salary to the petitioner with effect from 1.3.1996 to 15.1.1997 with interest @ 12% per annum. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 12% on delayed payment of DCRG, leave encashment and GIS saving fund. Respondents are further directed to restore one increment, which was wrongly withheld by them. Needful be done within a period of 12 weeks from today. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 21.6. 2010 *awasthi*