IN THE HIGH C_OURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITIONISINO./^'T OF 2008 stNr ^^- .<^v _\°^ ^" A^i^ ^' >s^~ IV Bhagat Singh Yadav, Aged About- 35 Years, S/o- Sujan Singh Yadav, Occupation- R/C No. 538 Constable 4*h Battalion, SAF, Mana Raipur R/o- Maa Vinvadani Public School, Near Pear Patanga, Magla, Vishnu, Police Station- Linepar, Distt. Firozabad (U.P.) , VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through - Its Secretary, Department of Home,< D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter, Raipur (C.G.) Additional Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter, Raipur (C.G.) Inspector General of Police, Special Armed Force, Bhilai Zone , Distt. Durg (C.G) Commandant, 4th Battalion, Special Armed Force, Mana Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G) .^"' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF TF^ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3. 4. 5. ^sf'8^ f^:^\ i-€ii»»i HIGH COURT OF ChlHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1504 OF 2008 PETITIONER Bhagat Singh Yadav RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticles 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Saif Khan, counsel for the petitioner. •/ Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe-State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 1st day ofApril, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus against the respondent authorities to grant full back wages to the petitioner for the period from 27-4-1998 to 26-8-2006, pursuant to the order of reinstatement dated 24-8-2006 (Annexure - P/2). 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being aggrieved by the order of removal had originally approached the State Administrative Tribunal on 31-3-1999, however, on account of abolition of the Tribunal, the matter was transferred to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and was numbered as W.P.No.13521 of2003 (Bhagat Singh Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others). 4. The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh after having considered all the aspects ofthe mater by order dated 20-7-2005 directed the respondent authorities to consider the departmental appeal of the petitioner afresh sympathetically, which reads as under: "7....1 would like to mention and Additional Director General of Police is hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically for the simple reason that the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 3^ 2 <!i.> 7. 323/34, 325/34 and 504, IPC was submitted in which the petitioner was acquitted. The stand of the petitioner may also be taken into consideration that on the date when the petitioner submitted character certification, verificafion form, he was not aware of the filing of charge sheet. While deciding the departmental appeal all these facts may be considered and necessary order ay be passed." The appellate authority again reconsidered the appeal of the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 20-7-2005 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and set aside the order of removal directing reinstatement of the petitioner without back wages. Learned counsel further submits that since the petitioner was not gainfully employed elsewhere, the petitioner is entitled to full back wages from the date he was removed from service till he was reinstated. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submits that the order of removal was quashed having regard to the observations of the High Court that the case of the petitioner may be considered sympathetically. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to back wageson the basis of principle of 'no woric no pay'. On careful consideration of thesubmissions made by the tearned counsel appearing for the pari:ies and perusal of the documents as well as the order dated 20-7-2005 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, it is evident that the petitioner did not succeed on merits before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, as the High Court had directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh at appellate stage sympathetically. In view of that the removal order was quashed by the appellate authority with a direction to reinstate the petitioner in service without back wages on the principle of 'no work no pay'. Thus, in this case wherein the consideration was done sympathetically not -4 "?^ on merit and the order of removal was not quashed on the basis of merit, refusal to grant back wages on the principle of 'no work no pay' isjust and proper. The petitioner had moved the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in writ petition not only for quashment of the removal, but for back wages also and there was no specific direction to consider grant of back wages, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, no writ or direction to pay •^ back wages to the petitioner may be granted. 9. The Supreme Court in Reetu Marbles v. Prabhakant Shukla , observed as under: "15. From the above observations it becomes apparent that payment of full back wages upon an order of termination being declared illegal cannot be granted mechanically. It does not automatically follow that reinstatement must be accompanied by payment of full back wages even for the period when the workman remained out of service and contributed little or nothing to the industry." 10. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^»3K'; ^,0'' HIGHGOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 1500 of 2008 Petitioner Versus Respondents 4. Narayan La! S/o Shri Shiv Lal, aged about 28 years, R/'o viliage and Post- Achhota, District Dhamtari (C.G.) The Chhattisgarh, Pubiic Sennce Commission ftrough its Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur (C.G.) Ths Controlisr (Examination) Chhattisgarh Pub!ic Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur ('C.G.) Ths Secretary, Panchayat and Sociai Weifaro Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Secretary Publte Works Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Si WRIT PETiTOIN UNDER ARTiCLE 226 OF THE CONSTiTUTiON OF INDiA ingle Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 2. 3. Shri Manoj r/iishra, AdvocaSe for the petitioner. Ms Sunita Jain, Panel La^vyer for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 9m day of Aprii, 2008} Leamed counse! appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, submits Shst the pstitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition. Learned counse! appearing for the respondente has no objsction. ;ordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrswn. A?»" r\\f\f Tha!<ur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1