This judgment pertains to a writ petition filed by an Assistant Professor (the Petitioner) who sought unpaid salary for the period between 1st August 2014 and 9th October 2014, following a delay in the issuance of an extension of service order. The Court allowed the petition, granting the unpaid salary but without interest, as per the Petitioner’s consent. The Court relied on precedents with similar facts and ruled in favor of the Petitioner based on previous judgments, particularly the case of Laxman Ragho Raundal vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors..

1. Rule and Case Overview

• Content of the Rule:
  • The rule was made returnable and heard finally by consent.
  • The Petitioner joined as an Assistant Professor on 14th August 1982 and was set to retire on 31st July 2014.
  • A circular dated 9th October 2014 extended the age of superannuation to 62 years.
  • The Petitioner was granted an extension until 31st July 2016 and resumed employment on 10th October 2014.

2. Petitioner's Claim

• Delay in Resumption Due to Circular:
  • The Petitioner offered to work but could not do so from 1st August 2014 to 9th October 2014 due to the delayed extension order.
  • The Petitioner sought unpaid salary for this period.

3. State's Opposition

• No Work-No Pay Principle:
  • The State opposed the petition, citing the 'No work, no wages' principle.
  • They argued that the Petitioner was rightly granted the extended service based on the circular.

4. Reliance on Precedents

• Judgment in Laxman Ragho Raundal’s Case:
  • The Court cited the decision in Laxman Ragho Raundal vs. State of Maharashtra where similarly placed professors were granted unpaid salary after their service extensions were delayed.
  • In that case, the professors resumed service after the circular but had not been paid during the gap period.

5. Application of the Snehal Arun Borse Case

• Applicability of Previous Rulings:
  • The Court further referred to the Snehal Arun Borse case, which followed a Supreme Court judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Dayanand Chakrawarti.
  • It was held that professors are entitled to salary even if not allowed to work due to administrative delays in issuing extension orders.

6. Court’s Findings and Decision

• Petitioner's Entitlement:
  • The Court declared that the Petitioner is entitled to the salary for the period from 1st August 2014 to 9th October 2014.
  • The Respondent was directed to submit salary bills and process the payment.

7. Interest on Unpaid Salary

• No Interest on Salary:
  • The Petitioner, through counsel, waived the claim for interest on the unpaid salary.

8. Timeline for Payment

• Implementation of Judgment:
  • The Court allowed a period of 90 days for the salary to be paid to the Petitioner.

9. Rule Made Absolute

• Final Order:
  • The Court made the rule partly absolute and allowed the petition to the extent of salary payment without interest.

Acts and Sections Discussed

1. Service Rules and Conditions:
   • Circular dated 9th October 2014 regarding superannuation extension.
2. Case Precedents:
   • State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Dayanand Chakrawarti & Ors.
   • Snehal Arun Borse vs. State of Maharashtra.
   • Laxman Ragho Raundal vs. State of Maharashtra.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court followed the legal principle that when the extension of service is granted belatedly due to administrative reasons, the employee is entitled to wages for the period during which they were not allowed to work. It upheld the petitioner's claim for unpaid salary based on previous judgments and established precedents, affirming the right to continuity of service even when delayed due to government processes.

Subjects:

Service Law – Superannuation Extension, Unpaid Salary for Delay in Issuance of Extension Orders

• Superannuation Age
• No Work-No Wages Principle
• Administrative Delay
• Unpaid Salary
• Service Law