Judgment:
W.P.No.4661/2009 15/07/2013 Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri N.K.Salunke, learned counsel for the respondents.
Challenging the orders passed by the Cooperative Tribunals in appeals and revisions in the matter of denying arrears of salary/ back- wages to the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
Petitioner was working in the District Cooperative Central Bank Federation Tikamgarh and it seems that the petitioner was granted voluntary retirement and finally, the petitioner challenged the same.
Annexure-P1 dated 9.10.1999 is the order granting benefit of VRS to the petitioner.
It was the case of the petitioner that he has been voluntarily retired without giving any reasons without due process of law and no show cause notice was issued and as an order of retirement is a major punishment, he challenged the same before the Assistant Registrar in a proceedings initiated by him under Section 55(2) of the M.P.Cooperative Societies Act.
The Assistant Registrar of the Cooperative Societies by his order Annexure-P2 dated 1.9.2000 interfered into the matter, quashed the order of VRS and directed for taking back the petitioner on duty.
However, as there was no direction for payment of back-wages or arrears of salary, the same was not granted and in the meanwhile, respondent preferred an appeal against the order before the Joint Registrar Cooperative Society, Sagar and the said appeal was dismissed vide Annexure-P3, therefore, a second appeal was filed before the M.P.State Cooperative Tribunal, which was also dismissed vide Annexure-P4 on 4.2.2005.
As no arrears of salary or payment for the intervening period was given, it is seen that the petitioner initiated certain proceedings under Section 55(2) of the Act but treating the intervening period as “No Work No Pay”.
and directing for counting service for all purposes, orders have been passed and, therefore, challenging this order, this writ petition has been filed.
Having heard Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri N.K.Salunke, learned counsel for the respondents, it is seen that the M.P.State Cooperative Tribunal has gone into the question of payment of arrears of salary and other benefit to the petitioner and after taking note of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Talwada Cooperative Credit & Service Society versus Sushil Kumar 2008 (7) SC 18.and various other judgments has found that it was a case of retirement without proper notice and the employee has been reinstated and on attaining the age of superannuation, his pay and pension has been fixed treating the period to be on duty for all purposes.
However, arrears of salary has been denied on the form of “No Work No Pay”.
and in support thereof, reliance is placed in the case of Sushil Kumar (Supra).Contending that when the order impugned has been set aside, the normal consequence of payment of back-wages and arrears of salary should be ordered and the Tribunal has no authority to deny the same, Shri Manish Tiwari prays for interference into the matter.
Shri N.K.Salunke, learned counsel refuted the aforesaid and argued that the order of VRS has been interfered with by the Cooperative Tribunal mainly on the ground that no show cause notice and three months' notice before enforcing the order of VRS was given and as the retirement of the petitioner has been interfered on technical grounds and as admittedly he had not worked for the intervening period, it is stated that applying the principle of “No Work No Pay”.
does not call for any interference in these proceedings.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From the records, it is clear that for the period in question, when the petitioner remained out of service due to his voluntary retirement, petitioner did not lead any evidence to show that during the period, he was not gainfully employed anywhere not did he produced any material to show that he was unable to earn wages for these period.
Accordingly, applying the principle laid down in the case of Sushil Kumar (Supra).it has been held by the tribunal that the employee did not show that during the intervening period, he was not gainfully employed and in the absence of any cogent evidence being available on record, the claim of arrears of salary and back-wages has been rejected.
The discretion exercised by the Cooperative Tribunal and the reasons given for denying arrears of salary for the intervening period cannot be termed as illegal, arbitrary and perveRs.to such an extent that interference into the matter is called for, particularly when the employee has been superannuated and is being granted pension.
The period in question has been counted as the period spent on for all purposes.
Finding no case made out for interference into the discretion exercised by the Tribunal, this petition is dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon) (A.K.Sharma) Judge Judge nd