Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 24650 of 2017 Petitioner :- Samant Lal Ojha Respondent :- Managing Director U.P. S.R.T.C. And 6 Othrs.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Samir Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,S.M. Mishra,Sunil Kumar Misra
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
As it comes out, the petitioner, who was driver with respondent-
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short "Corporation") dismissed from service on 14th May, 2015 after disciplinary proceedings got concluded. Against the dismissal order, the petitioner filed departmental appeal. However, the departmental appeal was dismissed vide order dated 4th January, 2016.The petitioner approached the Chairman of the respondent- Corporation by way of filing revision against the order dated 4th January, 2016 passed in his appeal. The Chairman of the respondent-Corporation vide order dated 2nd September, 2016 allowed the revision and ordered for petitioner's reinstatement in service with continuity. However, it was directed that for the period the petitioner was not in service, he would not be entitled for any salary, which is under challenge in the present petition.
Shri Samir Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that when the revisional authority has found that charge against the petitioner for being absent from 27th December, 2013 to 1st March, 2014 was not found to be proved, the petitioner is entitled for back wages from 14th May, 2015 to 2nd September, 2016.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the charge against the petitioner got proved upto the appellate stage and the Chairman of the respondent- Corporation, considering the fact, while reinstating him in service, has ordered for non-payment of salary for this period on the ground of 'no work no pay' and there is no illegality in the order impugned for non-payment of salary for the period in question.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
Reinstatement with back wages may not be appropriate, if it is found that the delinquent employee was employed during the period in question in some other organization or at some other place. This is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was employed in some other organization or at some other place during the period in question.
Since the petitioner has been reinstated in service, complete denial of back-wages for one year would not be justified. In this view of the matter, it would be appropriate in the interest of justice that the petitioner is paid 50% of the back wages for the period 14th May, 2015 to 2nd September, 2016. Therefore, the respondents are directed to make payment of 50% of the back wages to the petitioner for the period 14th May, 2015 to 2nd September, 2016 within a period of four weeks from the date certified copy of this order is produced.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 MVS Chauhan/-