Regular Second Appeal No.2404 of 2008 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: May 20, 2010 Ganeshi Lal ...Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.P.K.Sachdev, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The appellant was working as a Driver with Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh. On account of some misconduct on the part of the appellant, his services were terminated after holding departmental enquiry on 10.1.1989. Against the order of his termination, appellant preferred an appeal before the Departmental Regular Second Appeal No.2404 of 2008 (O&M) : 2 : Appellate Authority. The appeal was accepted and the relevant operative part of the order reads as under:- “I accept this appeal and order that he (plaintiff) may be reinstated in service with immediate effect. However, he will not be paid any salary for the period from the date of issue of order or reinstatement to his actual date of joining in March, 1987. Similarly for the period of suspension, he will not be paid anything over and above the subsistence allowance. His continuity of service and the seniority will remain intact.” The appellant had filed the suit with a grievance that the wages for the period of his suspension from duty, which were restricted to subsistence allowance, was not justified. He had accordingly challenged the order dated 10.10.1986 vide which he was suspended from service and also order dated 10.1.1989 through which his services were terminated and so also the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 21.4.1989 through which his appeal was accepted. His grievance is that he was not given the benefit of the back wages of the suspension period. The suit was contested and apart from other pleas, plea of limitation was raised on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. The right of the appellant to claim back wages was also denied, especially so when Appellate Authority had not given him benefit of full back wages for the period he had remained under suspension. The trial proceeded on the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP Regular Second Appeal No.2404 of 2008 (O&M) : 3 : 2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of notice U/S 80 CPC? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 6. Relief.” The suit was dismissed on merits as well as being time barred, against which the appellant filed an appeal which was also dismissed. Counsel for the appellant has insisted on raising a single point that no order in regard to the back wages was made and in this regard he has referred to order, Ex.D2, which contains an endorsement to this effect. The order reinstating the appellant was passed by the Departmental Appellate Authority on 21.4.1989. The order was communicated through a communication dated 16.5.1989, which was produced before the lower court and was marked as Ex.D2. This exhibit is the communication only, whereas relevant order is dated 21.4.1989. What exact order was passed by the Departmental Appellate Authority has already been reproduced above. The reading of the same would leave no manner of doubt that the reinstatement of the appellant was ordered with immediate effect. It was further directed that he will not be paid any salary for the period from the date of issue of the order or reinstatement to his actual date of joining. A specific order was passed that for the period he had remained under suspension, he will not be paid anything over and above the subsistence allowance. Plea that no order is passed Regular Second Appeal No.2404 of 2008 (O&M) : 4 : for payment of pay and allowances for the period the appellant has remained out of service would not in itself give a cause to the appellant to plead that a substantial question of law is arising for consideration. The appellant may represent to the respondents if he is entitled to any payment for this period, which would basically be governed by the principle of “no work no pay”. It is not such case where it is possible to say that the appellant was kept away from work for any unjustified ground. The appellant has even not been held entitled to any pay from the date of issue of the order or reinstatement to actual date of joining. There is no merit in the Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed. May 20, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE