# Officers Association v. Union of India

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 705
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001-07-20
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14755 of 1998
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/officers-association-v-union-of-india-40174
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India-Article 226-14Service Law-Termination order attendant
worked for more than 240 days in a
calendar year-Labour Court given award
for reinstatement with full back wageschallenged on the basis of no work no
pay-question whether workman entitled
for full back wages or otherwise? Reason
for not giving full back wages well
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
706 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
discussed-Award modified accordingly
with half of the back wages.

Held- Para 5

Lastly, it has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that
the workman concerned has not worked
from the date of termination till the date
of award. Therefore, on the basis of
principle of 'No work No Pay', the labour
court has definitely committed error in
granting reinstatement with full back
wages at the rate of Rs.600/- per month
from the date of termination till the date
of reinstatement. In my opinion, this
argument deserves to be accepted. It is
not
disputed
that
the
workman
concerned had admittedly not worked
during all these period and considering
the interest of justice, the award of the
labour court is modified to the extent
that instead of payment of back wages
at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month, the
workman concerned is entitled for the
back wages at the rate of Rs.300/- per
month from the date of termination till
the date of award.

## Text

3 All] Chandra Charu Mishra V. The State of U.P. and others
705
1996 (9) SCC 133
J.T. 1997 (6) SC 72
1994 (4) SCC-212
1990 (3) SCC-398

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner.

The petitioner has challenged the
impugned
G.O.
dated
20.7.2001,
8.8.2001, 3.9.2001 and 20.12.2001 on the
ground that they are ultra vires Article 14
of the Constitution. The petitioner has
also prayed for a mandamus directing the
respondent to fix the pension of the
petitioner according to revised pay scale
given by the fifth pay Commission.

2. The petitioner was appointed as
Assistant Teacher in Government Model
School on 4.1.1967 and was confirmed on
1.7.1971. He was provided selection
Grade from 4.1.1983 and the pay scales
were revised by the pay Commission in
1986 and 1996. The petitioner retired on
30.6.2001. By the impugned G.O. a
teacher who was in service on 1.7.2001 is
entitled to get the benefit of the revised
pay scale from 1.1.1996.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner retired
on 30.6.2001 and hence he was not
governed by the said G.O. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the cut of date i.e. 1.7.2001 is ultra vires
Article 14 of the Constitution. We do not
agree. Cut off dates have been upheld in
several decisions of the Supreme Court
e.g. All India Reserve Bank Retired
Officers Association v. Union of India,
J.T. 1991 (6) S.C. 400, State of Punjab v.
J.L.
Gupta,
2000
(3)
S.C.C.
736,
Multipurpose Health Workers Association
v. State of Haryana, 1996 (9) S.C.C. 133,
Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan,
J.T. 1997 (6) S.C. 72, Union of India v.
Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal, 1994 (4) S.C.C.
212, etc. that even if no reason has been
given for the basis of a cut off date, the
Court cannot interfere in such matters. It
is for the administration to fix the cut off
date and the Court should not interfere in
such administrative matters as held in the
aforesaid decisions. Some persons are
bound to have a grievance by a cut off
date, but that would not make it arbitrary,
vide Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v. State of
Rajasthan (supra)

4. Petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.07.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14755 of 1998

General
Manager/Managing
Director,
and another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kanpur
and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri S.N. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Sharma
S.C.

Constitution of India-Article 226-14Service Law-Termination order attendant
worked for more than 240 days in a
calendar year-Labour Court given award
for reinstatement with full back wageschallenged on the basis of no work no
pay-question whether workman entitled
for full back wages or otherwise? Reason
for not giving full back wages well
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
706 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
discussed-Award modified accordingly
with half of the back wages.

Held- Para 5

Lastly, it has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that
the workman concerned has not worked
from the date of termination till the date
of award. Therefore, on the basis of
principle of 'No work No Pay', the labour
court has definitely committed error in
granting reinstatement with full back
wages at the rate of Rs.600/- per month
from the date of termination till the date
of reinstatement. In my opinion, this
argument deserves to be accepted. It is
not
disputed
that
the
workman
concerned had admittedly not worked
during all these period and considering
the interest of justice, the award of the
labour court is modified to the extent
that instead of payment of back wages
at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month, the
workman concerned is entitled for the
back wages at the rate of Rs.300/- per
month from the date of termination till
the date of award.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

Learned counsel appearing for the
parties agreed that instead of deciding the
stay vacation application, the writ petition
itself may be heard and decided on merits.

2. The petitioners aggrieved by the
award of the Labour Court-IV, Kanpur
dated 17th January, 1998 passed in
Adjudication Case No. 60 of 1996,
(Annexure '3' to the writ petition), have
approached this Court by means of this
writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

The following dispute was referred
for adjudication to the labour court:

"D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk Jfed Jh ohjsUnz flag iq= Jh
j{kiky flag] vVs.Ms.V dks fnukad 13.10.93 ls dk;Z ls
i`Fkd@oafpr fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/kkfud gS? ;fn ugha]
rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk@{kfriwfrZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS
fdl frfFk ,oa vU; fdl fooj.k ds lkFk?"

3. The labour court issued notice to
the parties, namely, workman and the
employer. The parties have exchanged
their pleadings and adduced the evidence.
The
labour
court
has
categorically
recorded a finding after considering the
evidence on record that from the perusal
of Ext. 25 to Ext. 45, it is apparent that
the workman concerned has worked from
the year 1991 to 12th October, 1993 when
his services were terminated. Thus, he has
worked for more than 240 days in the
proceeding calendar year. The labour
court has also recorded a finding that it
will not make any difference whether the
nature of the appointment of the workman
concerned was temporary in nature and
further there was direction from the State
of terminate the services of the temporary
workman, like the respondent no. 2. Thus,
the labour court directed after holding that
the termination of the services of the
workman concerned with effect from 13th
October, 1993 is illegal and directed the
reinstatement of the workman concerned
with continuity of service and back wages
at the rate of Rs.600/- per month.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
tried to assail the findings arrived at by
the labour court but, in my opinion, has
not been able to demonstrate that the
finding recorded by the labour court
suffers from error of law much less
manifest error of law so as to warrant an
interference by this Court in exercise of
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] G. M./Managing Director and another V. P.O., Labour Court, Kanpur and another
707
 powers
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India.

5. Lastly, it has been submitted by
the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the workman concerned has not worked
from the date of termination till the date
of award. Therefore, on the basis of
principle of 'No work No Pay', the labour
court has definitely committed error in
granting reinstatement with full back
wages at the rate of Rs.600/- per month
from the date of termination till the date
of reinstatement. In my opinion, this
argument deserves to be accepted. It is not
disputed that the workman concerned had
admittedly not worked during all these
period and considering the interest of
justice, the award of the labour court is
modified to the extent that instead of
payment of back wages at the rate of
Rs.600/-
per
month,
the
workman
concerned is entitled for the back wages
at the rate of Rs.300/- per month from the
date of termination till the date of award.

6. In view of what has been stated
above, this writ petition deserves to be
dismissed and is hereby dismissed except
with the modification that instead of
payment of back wages at the rate of
Rs.600/-
per
month,
the
workman
concerned is entitled for the back wages
at the rate of Rs.300/- per month from the
date of termination till the date of award.
The interim order, if any, stands vacated.
There will be no order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.07.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.K. DASH, J.
THE HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.249 of 2003

Vishal Yadav

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.K. Dwivedi
Sri Prem Prakash

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri G.S. Chaturvedi
Sri Samit Gopal
Sri Surendra Singh, A.G.A.
Sri Amarjeet Singh, A.G.A.
Sri S.K. Saxena

Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 24
(8)-appointment
of
Special
Public
Prosecutor-person appointed has due
qualification
and
experienceappointment can not be quashed-on the
ground
of
endorsement
made
by
Principal Secretary the appointment has
been
made
without-consideration
of
suitabilidy of law department-However
such practice not to be adopted in
future.

Held- Para 11 & 14

The respondent no.4 having a long
experience
of
working
as
Legal
Advisor/Public Prosecutor with Central
Buearo of Investigation and after laying
down his office actively practicing in the
Courts of law as an Advocate, has if been
appointed as Special Public Prosecutor
under sub Section (8) of Section 24 of
the Code, there is no scope to challenge
his such appointment on the ground of
non eligibility or arbitrariness.
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in