EMPLOYEE WRONGFULLY RETIRED AT 58 ENTITLED TO SALARY FOR PERIOD UNTIL SUPERANNUATION AT 60.

The deceased employee, initially appointed as a Social Worker in the Human Reproduction Research Centre on December 1, 1991, was wrongly retired on March 31, 2013, upon reaching 58 years of age.

Information obtained under the RTI Act and an OM dated November 29, 2011, indicated that the superannuation age for a Social Worker, a technical post, was 60 years.

Following a representation, the employee was allowed to continue service from June 19, 2014, until March 31, 2015, when she attained 60 years.

She then sought her salary for the period of illegal retirement, from April 1, 2013, to June 18, 2014.

This claim was rejected by the respondents on April 26, 2017, and again on September 29, 2017, arguing the "gap period of 14 months 18 days cannot be considered as continuance of temporary service" and applying the principle of "no work no pay".

The original applicant subsequently expired during the pendency of the OA and was substituted by her husband as the legal heir.

1. Whether the rejection orders dated April 26, 2017, and September 29, 2017, disallowing arrear salary for the period from April 1, 2013, to June 18, 2014, were illegal and arbitrary.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to salary for the period from April 1, 2013, to June 18, 2014, given she was retired for no fault of hers.

3. Whether the retirement order dated March 23, 2013, retiring the applicant upon completion of 58 years, was illegal and arbitrary.

The court applied the principle that the "no work no pay" rule is not applicable when an employee is prevented from working by authorities without their fault.

This principle was derived from the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in *J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal ((2007) 2 SCC 433)* and *State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey (AIR 2000 SC 3734)*.

Additionally, the court relied on *Harwindra Kumar vs Chief Engineer, Karnik & Others in Civil Appeal No. 7840/2002*, which held that employees erroneously not allowed to continue service up to the correct superannuation age are entitled to payment of salary for the remaining period.

The applicable superannuation age for technical and administrative staff was 60 years, as per OM dated November 29, 2011.

The court found that the applicant's retirement at 58 years on March 31, 2013, was a mistake on the part of the respondents, as her correct superannuation age was 60 years according to OM dated November 29, 2011.

The respondents' attempt to invoke the "no work no pay" principle was deemed inapplicable because the applicant was kept away from work due to the respondents' "omission and commission," not her own fault.

Citing *J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal* and *State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey*, the Tribunal reiterated that this principle does not apply when an employee is barred from working by the authorities without any fault on their part.

Furthermore, relying on *Harwindra Kumar vs Chief Engineer, Karnik & Others*, the court established that employees wrongly denied continuation of service up to the correct superannuation age are entitled to their salary for the period they were out of work.

Since the applicant was allowed to rejoin service from June 19, 2014, it was clear that the initial retirement was erroneous, and she was wrongly deprived of work for the period in question.

The Tribunal declared that the applicant's retirement on completion of 58 years was illegal and that she was entitled to salary for the period from April 1, 2013, to June 18, 2014, as she was made to retire for no fault of hers.

The respondents were directed to pay the salary and other admissible allowances to the legal heirs of the applicant within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order.

No costs were awarded.