नो वर्क नो पे का आदेश अवैध, हाईकोर्ट ने रद्द किया | EMPLOYEE NEWS

Monday, December 18, 2017

नई दिल्ली। इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने फैसला दिया है कि यदि सरकारी अपने कर्मचारियों से काम नहीं लेती तो उनका वेतन 'नो वर्क नो पे' के आधार पर रोक नहीं सकती। हाईकोर्ट ने उत्तरप्रदेश सरकार के उस आदेश को नियमाव​ली के विरुद्ध बताते हुए रद्द कर दिया जिसमें कई कर्मचारियों का वेतन इसलिए रोक दिया गया था क्योंकि उनसे काम नहीं लिया गया था। हाईकोर्ट ने कहा कि यदि कर्मचारी काम करने को तैयार थे तो उनका वेतन नहीं रोका जा सकता। 

AFR
Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 33360 of 2017
Petitioner :- Angad Yadav And 7 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Pati Shukla, Anurag Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Manu Singh
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
This petition has been moved on behalf of eight teachers of the
Basic Schools. Petitioner nos. 1 to 5 and 8 were Headmaster and petitioner
nos. 6 and 7 were Assistant Teacher. They are aggrieved by the
Government Order dated 02nd May, 2017 issued by the Special Secretary,
Government of U.P., Lucknow, whereby the claim for their salary during
the period when they were not allowed to function has been denied on the
ground of no work no pay. 
The basic facts may briefly be stated. The petitioners were working
as Headmasters and/or Assistant Teachers, as the case may be, in Junior
Basic Schools/ Senior Basic Schools conducted by the Uttar Pradesh
Board of Basic Education1
. The basic schools are governed under the
provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 19722
, Rules framed
thereunder and the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service
Rules, 19813
In the Rules, 1981 the age of superannuation of teacher is provided
as 62 years. Rule 29 of the Rules, 1981 deals with the age of
superannuation. Proviso to Rule 29 provides that a teacher who retires
during an academic session (July 1 to June 30) shall continue to work till
the end of the academic session i.e. 30th June and such period shall be
deemed as extended period of employment. 
Dates of birth of the petitioners fall between May, 1953 to July, 1953
on different dates. For the sake of convenience, the details of the
petitioners' date of birth and date of superannuation are mentioned in the
1 Board
2 Act, 1972
3 Rules, 1981

table below: Petitioner nos. Date of  birth Date of superannuation 1 01.07.1953 31.03.2016 2 01.06.1953 31.03.2016 3 01.05.1953 31.03.2016 4 03.05.1953 31.03.2016 5 01.07.1953 31.03.2016 6 01.07.1953 31.03.2016 7 01.07.1953 31.03.2016 8 15.05.1953 31.03.2016 According  to  Rule  29  of  the  Rules,  1981,  the  petitioners  were entitled  to  continue  till  the  end  of  the  academic  session  i.e.  30th  June,  2015, but   in  the  meantime  on  09th  December,  2014  the  State  Government pursuant  to  a  policy  decision  changed  the  academic  session  with  effect from  the  academic  year  2015-16  from  01st  April  to  31st  March.  Earlier  the academic  session  was  from  01st  July  to  30th  June.  The  State  Government issued  other  Government  orders  on  15th  June,  2015  and  29th  June,  2015  in this  regard clarifying the earlier  Government  orders.       Interpreting   the   said   Government   orders,   the   Secretary,   Basic Education  took  a  view  that  the  teachers,  who  attain  the  age  of  62  years before  30th  June,  2015,  shall  not  be  entitled  to  sessional  benefit  beyond  30th June,  2015. The Government  orders  and the consequential  order  of  the Secretary, Basic  Education,  were  challenged  in  a  large  number  of  writ  petitions  in this   Court  and  at  Lucknow  Bench  wherein  interim  protections  were granted  to  the  teachers  for  their  continuance  till  31st  March,  2016  on  the ground  that  their  dates  of  superannuation  fall  after  01st  April,  2015.  Hence, after  the  change  of  the  academic  session,  they  were  allowed  to  continue  till the end  of  the academic  session i.e.  31st  March, 2016. Those  writ  petitions  were  finally  decided  by  a  Division  Bench  of this  Court  in  Special  Appeal  Defective  No.  360  of  2015,  State  of

It  is  stated  that  the  petitioners  after  their  joining  retired  from  their respective  posts  on 31st  March, 2016. After  their  retirement,  the  petitioners  claimed  their  salary  for  the period  from  30th  June,  2015  to  21st  November,  2015  when  they  were illegally  made  to  retire.  The  petitioners  made  representations  for  their salary  for  the  said  period.  However,  in  the  meantime  the  State  Government issued  an  order  dated  02nd  May,  2017,  wherein  it  is  provided  that  the teachers,  who  were  retired  on  30th  June,  2015  and  due  to  change  of  the academic  session  were  allowed  to  rejoin,  would  not  be  entitled  for  the salary  during  the  period  when  they  have  not  worked  on  the  basis  of  'no work,  no  pay'  but  that  period  would  be  treated  on  duty  for  the  purposes  of pension  and  retiral  benefits.  Challenging  this  Government  order  dated  02nd May,  2017, the instant  writ  petition  has  been  filed.  Since  pure  question  of  law  is  involved  in  the  matter,  learned  counsel for  the  parties  agreed  for  final  disposal  of  the  writ  petition  without  calling any  response  from  the  respondents.  Hence,  with  their  consent  the  writ petition  is  being  disposed  of  finally  at  this  stage  in  terms  of  the  Rules  of the Court.  I  have  heard  Sri  K.P.  Shukla,  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioners,  and learned Standing Counsel. Learned  counsel  for  the  petitioners  submits  that  in  view  of  the  law laid   down  by  this  Court  in  the  case  of   Ramesh  Chandra  Tiwari (supra)  and  the  consequential  Government  Order,  which  has  been  issued on  08th  October,  2015  the  petitioners  were  entitled  to  continue  till  the  end of  the  academic  session  i.e.  31st  March,  2016,  whereas  they  were  forced  to retire  on  30th  June,  2015,  hence  the  principle  of  'no  work,  no  pay'  shall  not be  applicable  in the  facts  of  the present  case.  He further  submits  that  all  the teachers  were  allowed  to  work  till  the  end  of  the  academic  session  (31st March,  2016)  but  the  respondents  illegally  retired  the  petitioners  on  31st March,  2015  and  did  not  allow  them  to  discharge  their  duties.  He  has placed  reliance  on  the  judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  State  of  Bihar v.  Kripa  Nand  Singh5,  Deepali  Gundu  Surwase  v.  Kranti  Junior Adhyapak  Mahavidyalaya  (D.Ed.)  and  others6,  Raghubir  Singh v.   General   Manager,   Haryana   Roadways,   Hissar7,  and   Burn Standard  Company  Limited  v.  Tarun  Kumar  Chakraborty8,  and of  this  Court  in  Smt.  Rajmati  Singh  v.  State  of  U.P.  and  others9, and   Brijendra  Prakash  Kulshrestha  v.  Director  of  Education and  others10. Learned  Standing  Counsel  has  supported  the  impugned  Government order  on  the  ground  that  the  petitioners  have  been  rightly  denied  the  salary on the ground of  no work no pay.  I  have  considered  the  rival  submissions  advanced  by  the  learned counsel  for  the parties  and perused the record.   The  services  of  the  petitioners  are  governed  under  the  Rules,  1981. Rule  29  thereof  provides  that  the  age  of  superannuation  of  a  teacher  in  a basic school  shall  be 62 years.  Rule 29 reads  as  under: "29.   Age  of  superannuation.-  Every  teacher  shall retire  from  service  in  the  afternoon  of  the  last  day  of  the  month in  which  he  attains  the  age  of  62  years: Provided  that  a  teacher  who  retires  during  an  academic session  (July  1  to  June  30)  shall  continue  to  work  till  the  end  of the  academic  session,  that  is,  June  30  and  such  period  of  service will  be  deemed  as  extended  period  of  employment." Previously,   the   academic   session   in   the   basic   schools   and Intermediate   colleges   was   from   01st  July   to   30th  June.   The   State Government  by  two  separate  Government  Orders  dated  15th  October,  2014 and  09th  December,  2014  respectively  changed  the  academic  session  in  the Intermediate  colleges  and  basic  schools  from  01st  April  to  31st  March. Proviso  to  Rule  29  clearly  provides  that  in  case  the  date  of  superannuation falls  during  the  academic  session,  the  teacher  shall  be  allowed  to  continue 5 2014 LawSuit  (SC)  689 :  2014 (14)  SCC  375 6 2013 LawSuit  (SC)  994 :  2013 (10)  SCC  324 7 2014 LawSuit  (SC)  650 :  2014 (10)  SCC  301 8 2000 LawSuit  (SC)  764 :  2002 (10)  SCC  585 9 2017 (3) ADJ  656 (DB)(LB) 10 2007 LawSuit  (All)  90 :  2008 (6)  AWC  5580

till  the  end  of  the  academic  session.  A  similar  provision  is  provided  in  all the   statutes,   which  deal  with  the  educational  authorities  as  the  First Statutes  of  the  University,  Regulations  framed  under  the  Intermediate Education  Act,  the  Rules,  1981,  which  deals  with  the  service  conditions  of the  teachers  in  the  basic  schools  conducted  by  the  Board,  and  the  Rules, 1978,  which  deals  with  the  service  conditions  of  the  teachers  working  in the  recognised  institutions  under  the  Act,  1972  established  by  the  societies registered   under   the  Societies  Registration  Act  and  managed  by  the Committee  of  Management  elected  by them. The  object  of  the  aforesaid  provision  regarding  continuance  under the  different  Services  Rules/  Statues  is  that  if  a  teacher  retires  during  the course  of  the  academic  session,  his  service  is  extended  by  virtue  of  the rules/statues  till  the  end  of  the  academic  session,  so  that  the  studies  of  the students  may  not  be  affected.  Therefore,  underlying  purpose  is  primarily  to give  benefit  to  the  students.  In  the  present  case,  as  is  evident  from  the details  of  their  dates  of  birth  mentioned  above  in  the  table,  they  were  born after  1st  of  April  in 1953.  Thus,  their  superannuation  falls  after  01st  of  April, 2015.  When  first  time  the  change  of  the  academic  session  (from  01st  April, 2015  to  31st  March,  2016)  became  effective,  indisputably  they  were entitled  for  the  sessional  benefit  and  they  should  not  have  been  retired prior  to 31st  March,  2016. However,   the  Secretary   of  the  Board  wrongly  interpreted  the Government  orders  and  issued  a  direction  for  not  extending  the  sessional benefit  to  all  those  teachers  whose  date  of  superannuation  was  falling  upto 30th  June,  2015.  This  Court  in  Ramesh  Chandra  Tiwari  (supra)  had the  occasion  to  consider  the  order  issued  by  the  Secretary,  Basic  Education dated  15th  June,  2015  and  it  was  set  aside  by  the  Court  in  its  elaborate judgment. Suffice  it  would  be  to  mention  that  the  State  Government  did  not challenge  the  judgment  of  this  Court  in   Ramesh   Chandra   Tiwari (supra)  and  it  issued  a  Government  Order  dated  08th  October,  2015,

wherein  after  extracting  the  operative  portion  of  the  judgment  of  Ramesh Chandra   Tiwari's  case  the  State  Government  has  issued  necessary directions  to  all  the  concerned  educational  authorities  to  comply  with  the aforesaid  judgment  and  it  was  further  directed  that  all  such  teachers,  whose date  of  birth  falls  after  01st  April,  2015,  shall  be  allowed  to  continue  till  the end  of  the  academic  session  i.e.  31st  March,  2016.  The  State  Government has  also  mentioned  in  the  said  order  that  necessary  amendment  be  carried out  in  the  Rules,  1981  and  other  concerned  rules  in  terms  of  the  law  laid down by this  Court  in  Ramesh  Chandra  Tiwari  (supra). In   compliance  with  the  said  judgment  of  this  Court  and  the Government  Order  dated  08th  October,  2015,  admittedly  all  the  petitioners were  allowed  to  re-join  their  duties  and  their  pension  was  stopped.  The petitioners  have  brought  on  record  their  joining  orders,  which  demonstrate that  they  have  been  allowed  to  join  their  posts  in  November,  2015.  They were  paid  their  salaries  onwards  till  their  superannuation  on  31st  March, 2016.    Hence,  it  is  a  common  ground  between  the  parties  that  they  did  not work  from  01st  July,  2015  till  the  date  of  their  joining  in  November,  2015 when  they  were  allowed to work in their  respective  institutions. The  only  question  which  arises  in  the  present  petition  is  whether  the petitioners  are entitled for  their  salaries  from  01st  July, 2015 until  they were allowed  to join their  posts  in November, 2015 or  not. In  this  regard,  the  State  Government  has  formed  an  opinion  on  the basis  of  the  advice  of  the  Finance  Department  that  the  petitioners  are  not entitled  for  their  salary  for  the  period  when  admittedly  they  have  not rendered any service  on the ground of  'no work, no pay'. The  core  question  that  arises  in  the  present  case  is  whether  the principle   of  'no  work,  no  pay'  shall  be  applicable  in  the  facts  and circumstances  of  the present  case. Learned  counsel  for  the  petitioners  has  strenuously  urged  that  the petitioners  were  always  ready  and  willing  to  work  in  the  institutions  as Headmasters/  Assistant  Teachers,  as  the  case  may  be,  but  they  were

------------------------------------------------------------------
"As noted above, the Division Bench has declared the Government Order dated 15th June, 2015 illegal.

Regard may be had to the fact that on the basis of the said order, the petitioners were denied sessional benefits. Once the said order was set aside, the petitioners became entitled to continue. The respondents have also allowed the petitioners to rejoin their position.

Therefore, in the said background and on a careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the impugned Government Order dated 02nd May, 2017 has to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The petitioners are entitled for their salary from 30th June, 2015 till the date of their rejoining. Ordered accordingly. 
Thus, the writ petition stands allowed. 
No order as to costs."

Order Date :- 19.8.2017 
sailesh/SKT/-

SHARE WITH YOU FRIENDS

-----------

CHOOSE YOUR FAVOURITE NEWS CATEGORY | कृपया अपनी पसंदीदा श्रेणी चुनें

mgid

Loading...

Popular News This Week