State Of Punjab & Anr vs Surinder Pal Singh & Anr
- SCC(2009) 17 SCC 659
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an employee has been wrongfully withheld from appointment during a given period but is subsequently appointed at a delayed date, the employer is bound to grant notional increments for the period of wrongful exclusion from appointment, but is not obligated to pay full salary for the period during which the employee was not actually in service and performing duties.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SURINDER PAL SINGH & ANR. Respondent(s)
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. The respondents, by a judgment dated 5th April, 1999 of the
Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, were
directed to be appointed in service and the Public Service Commission was
to take steps within 30 days for doing so. Thereafter steps were taken by
the State and as there was some delay, the respondents again went to the
Court for implementation of the order and the appointments were made in
September, 2000. As they had to be given appointments from 1998
onwards the notional scale pay was fixed and they were also given the
notional increments for belated appointments. The respondents thereafter
filed a writ petition claiming that they should be given arrears of salary from
the period 1998. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, has directed
that as these respondents ought to have been appointed from 1998, the
State should pay their salary from 1998 onwards.
3. Heard both sides.
2 3
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State contends that the
respondents were appointed only from the year 2000 and so the State may
not be directed to pay the salary for the period for which they were not
working and, in our opinion, there is no justifiable reason to give salary to
these respondents for the period for which they had not worked. The
respondents, in any way, are entitled to get their notional increments as they
ought to have been appointed from the year 1998 onwards. They were not
entitled to salary for the period for which they were not working. Therefore,
we set aside the order of the High Court to that extent.
5. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
...............CJI.
(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)
.................J. (P. SATHASIVAM)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 6, 2009.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free