The Rajasthan High Court directed the State to pay full salary and other allowances to an employee who was wrongfully compulsorily retired, rejecting the argument that he could not be paid for the period when he did not work. The bench of Justice Praveer Bhatnagar considered a writ petition filed by K.C. Jain, a government employee who had been compulsorily retired in 2006 on the basis of alleged poor past performance, and whose retirement order was subsequently quashed by the appellate authority in 2014. The appellate authority had set aside the retirement order on the ground that the petitioner’s service record in the five years preceding retirement showed no adversity and that adverse remarks relied upon for his retirement were dated before 1994, and had denied payment of wages for the period of compulsory retirement on the premise that he had not discharged duties during that time. The petitioner challenged the denial of back wages, contending that the compulsory retirement was unwarranted and therefore he was entitled to salary and allowances for the period during which he was prevented from rendering his services.
In its analysis, the High Court examined the appellate authority’s findings, noting that there was no cogent material to justify compulsory retirement and that the adverse entries in the petitioner’s service record dated back many years before retirement without evidence of recent poor performance. The Court referred to precedent where similar issues had been considered, highlighting that when a wrongful compulsory retirement is set aside, the fault for the employee’s absence from duty lies with the employer and not with the employee, and that consequently the employee should not be denied back wages on a “no work, no pay” basis. The High Court emphasized that the petitioner, having been wrongfully removed from service, could not be penalized by denying him wages and allowances for the intervening period when he was prevented from performing his duties through no fault of his own, and observed that the appellate authority’s refusal to award such benefits amounted to an unjust denial of consequential relief following the quashing of the retirement order. Relying on principles established in relevant jurisprudence, the bench stressed that the employer’s failure to utilise the services of the employee during the period of wrongful retirement could not justify invocation of the “no work, no pay” doctrine, since the employee was ready and willing to discharge his duties if permitted to remain in service.
Having concluded that the petitioner was entitled to his full salary and other allowances for the period from June 14, 2006 to July 31, 2010, the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents, including the State of Rajasthan, to pay the petitioner the salary and emoluments due for that period within three months. The judgment affirmed that back wages form part of the consequential benefits to which an employee is entitled when a wrongful compulsory retirement is set aside, and that such entitlement cannot be denied on the basis that the employee did not actually work during the period of retirement when the retirement itself was declared invalid. The Court disposed of the petition after issuing these directions, bringing to an end long-standing litigation over the entitlement to wages and allowances that had been withheld following the improper exercise of compulsory retirement powers.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.