SUKHDEO PANDEY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

SUKHDEO PANDEY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

The appellant, whose removal as EDBPM was set aside, was lawfully entitled only to benefits and reinstatement as EDBPM, not as Postman, since the promotion process was irregular and set aside. Reinstatement as Postman was a mistake properly corrected by reversion. The appellant is therefore not entitled to salary for periods not worked under the doctrine of 'no work, no pay'. However, since he worked long as Postman, he may be continued in that role and paid accordingly, but pension and other terminal benefits must be fixed based on substantive EDBPM post.

Parties
Appellant: Sukhdeo Pandey; Respondents: Union of India and Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment of Supreme Court, Appeal From the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, W.p.(s) No. 4784 of 2005
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed
Legal Topics
Reinstatement, Promotion, Departmental Proceedings, Removal From Service, Pension, No Work No Pay
Service Law Reinstatement Promotion Departmental Proceedings Removal From Service Pension No Work No Pay

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sukhdeo Pandey

Appellant

Union of India and Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment of Supreme Court, Appeal From the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, W.p.(s) No. 4784 of 2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to reinstatement as Postman or only as EDBPM after order of removal was set aside
  2. 2 Whether appellant is entitled to arrears of salary for the period not worked
  3. 3 Whether reversion from Postman to EDBPM was legally tenable

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant, whose removal as EDBPM was set aside, was lawfully entitled only to benefits and reinstatement as EDBPM, not as Postman, since the promotion process was irregular and set aside. Reinstatement as Postman was a mistake properly corrected by reversion. The appellant is therefore not entitled to salary for periods not worked under the doctrine of 'no work, no pay'. However, since he worked long as Postman, he may be continued in that role and paid accordingly, but pension and other terminal benefits must be fixed based on substantive EDBPM post.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed

Orders

  • Respondents to continue the appellant as Postman and pay salary of Postman henceforth
  • Pension and other terminal benefits on superannuation to be fixed based on EDBPM post