Supreme Court Overturns High Court Order on Teacher’s Salary and Service Continuity
The case of District Basic Education Officer Allahabad vs. Sushila Jaiswal & Others centers around the claim for unpaid salary by a retired school teacher. The Supreme Court had to determine whether an employee absent for a prolonged period without due cause was entitled to salary for that period.
Background of the Case
The first respondent, Sushila Jaiswal (since deceased, represented by her legal representatives), was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a Primary School on June 12, 1979. She was later promoted on June 26, 2000, to an Upper Primary Institution in Dandupur, Chaka, Allahabad.
However, she remained absent from duty due to medical reasons:
- Medical leave: From November 25, 1999, to June 30, 2000
- Extended leave: From August 1, 2001, to September 5, 2002
- Upon her return on September 6, 2002, she was not allowed to rejoin duty.
The education department sought a medical fitness report from the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Allahabad, on October 19, 2002, but no report was received.
Legal Proceedings
1. Writ Petition and Reinstatement Order
After being denied rejoining, Sushila Jaiswal filed Writ Petition No. 14885 of 2006, seeking reinstatement and salary. However, the case was dismissed for default.
In 2009, her name was included in a list of teachers absent for extended periods, and she was issued a notice on October 7, 2009, asking her to either rejoin or provide an explanation.
2. Termination Order
On January 14, 2010, the education department passed an order terminating her services:
“Looking at her condition, it can be safely concluded that she is unable to stand without assistance and is unfit for a teaching job. Disciplinary action is warranted under Financial Handbook Volume II, Rule 18, for those absent for more than five years.”
3. High Court Ruling in Favor of Jaiswal
Jaiswal challenged her termination in Writ Petition No. 18853 of 2010. The High Court ordered a medical test, and the CMO found her fit for teaching. On April 21, 2010, the High Court directed her reinstatement.
She was reinstated on May 15, 2010, and later applied for voluntary retirement on July 17, 2010, retiring on July 31, 2010, a year before her actual retirement date of June 30, 2011.
4. Claim for Salary Dues
Jaiswal filed Writ Petition No. 30513 of 2011 seeking salary arrears for the period between August 1, 2001, to May 14, 2010. The Single Judge ruled in her favor on March 10, 2015, awarding:
- Salary arrears from September 6, 2002, to May 14, 2010
- 8.5% interest if paid within three months, else 12% interest
- Rs. 20,000 as costs
5. Special Appeal by the Education Department
The education department challenged the order before the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 374 of 2015, but it was dismissed on March 21, 2017. The department then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations
1. Absence of Genuine Effort to Resume Duty
The Court observed that:
“Despite multiple requests for a medical report, no fitness certificate was provided. The respondent only moved the court in 2006, and her petition was dismissed for non-appearance.”
2. Medical Fitness Findings
The Court noted:
“The CMO found that the respondent could not stand for long, though she was deemed fit for teaching. However, she voluntarily retired just after rejoining, indicating physical discomfort and disinclination to work.”
3. No Work, No Pay
The Supreme Court ruled:
“The principle of ‘no work, no pay’ applies. The High Court’s order effectively awards nearly ten years of salary for only 36 days of work.”
4. Retirement and Pension Benefits
The Court found that:
- Jaiswal received full pension benefits post-retirement.
- She voluntarily retired soon after rejoining, contradicting her claim for back wages.
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled:
- The High Court’s order was set aside.
- The writ petition was dismissed.
- Jaiswal’s legal representatives were not entitled to salary arrears from August 1, 2001, to May 14, 2010.
- No additional costs were awarded.
The Court concluded:
“The principle of ‘no work, no pay’ is applicable. The claim for salary without work for nearly ten years is unjustified.”
Implications of the Judgment
1. Clarifies the ‘No Work, No Pay’ Rule
This ruling reinforces that employees who remain absent for prolonged periods without due process cannot claim salary for that period.
2. Prevents Misuse of Service Benefits
The judgment ensures that pensioners do not retroactively claim wages without performing duties.
3. Strengthens Administrative Accountability
The ruling affirms that government authorities can terminate employees for extended absenteeism following due process.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in District Basic Education Officer Allahabad vs. Sushila Jaiswal upholds fairness in salary claims. By ruling against unjustified salary payments, the Court ensures that public funds are used responsibly and sets a precedent for similar cases.
Petitioner Name: District Basic Education Officer Allahabad.Respondent Name: Sushila Jaiswal (Dead) through her LRs and Others.Judgment By: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.Place Of Incident: Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh.Judgment Date: 17-05-2018.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: District Basic Educa vs Sushila Jaiswal (Dea Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 17-05-2018.pdf
Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Pension and Gratuity
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by Arun Mishra
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments
See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
