STATE OF J & K AND ORS.versusSAT PAL

                       [2013] 2 S.C.R. 648


A                  STATE OF J & K AND ORS.
                                 v.
                            SAT PAL
               (Civil Appeal Nos.938-939 of 2013)

                       FEBRUARY 5, 2013
B
    [P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.]

        Service Law:

c       Appointment - Recruitment - Candidate in wait-list -
   Claiming appointment, in view that candidate above him in
  the merit list did not join - His writ petition disposed of
  directing the appellant-State to examine the claim - State
  rejected the claim - Contempt petition - Disposed of holding
0 that the candidate deserved to be appointed and directing the
  State to consider the case and pass orders in accordance with
  the order of the Court - LPA by State - Dismissed as not
  maintainable - On appeal, held: In the facts of the case, the
  candidate deserved to be appointed to the post - The offer
E of appointment would relate back to the permissible date
  contemplated under rules laying down conditions of service
  of the cadre - The candidate entitled to seniority immediately
  below those who were appointed from the same process of
  selection - He would be entitled to wages from the date of the
  order.
F
        The respondent participated in the selection process
  for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II, and figured
  in the final merit/select list of Scheduled Caste
  candidates. On coming to know that some scheduled
G Caste candidates above him in the merit list had not
  joined inspite of having been offered appointment, he
  addressed a representation seeking appointment against
  an available vacancy. He specifically named a candidate
  'T', in the merit list, who did not join despite being offered
H                              648
      STATE OF J & K AND ORS. v. SAT PAL               649


appointment. As the representation remained undecided,        A
the respondent filed writ petition before High Court. The
appellant-State did not appear before the Court. High
Court disposed of the petition and directed the
appointing authority to examine the claim of the
respondent. The appellants dismissed the claim of the         B
respondent taking the view that the vacancies cannot be
filled at the belated stage; and that the appointment could
not have been granted in accordance with the waiting list,
as the same had outlived its validity. The respondent filed
contempt petition against the order. High Court disposed      c
of the petition holding that the respondent deserved to
be appointed and directed the appellant-State to consider
the issue and pass orders in accordance with the
judgment of the Court. Appellants filed LPA taking the
plea that the directions in the nature recorded by High
                                                              0
Court was not permissible in exercise of contempt
jurisdiction. Division Bench of High Court dismissed the
appeal as not maintainable. Hence the present appeal.

    Disposing of the appeals, the Court
                                                              E.
     HELD: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
it would be just and appropriate to direct the appellants
to appoint the respondent against the post of Junior
Engineer (Civil) Grade-II. Even though candidates who
were higher in merit, were offered appointment to the post    F
of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II, for which recruitment
was held, some of such posts remained vacant on
account of the fact that persons higher in merit to the
respondent had declined to join, despite having been
offered appointment. Atleast one such vacancy never
came to be filled up. In such a situation, the claim of the   G
respondent whose name figured in the merit/select list,
ought to have been offered appointment against the said
post. The claim of the respondent could not have been
repudiated. The offer of appointment would relate back
                                                              H
    650     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A to the permissible date contemplated under the rules
  laying down conditions of service of the cadre to which
  the respondent would be appointed. The respondent
  would be entitled to seniority immediately below those
  who were appointed from the same process of selection.
B Since the respondent has not discharged his duties, he
  would be entitled to wages only with effect from the date
  of the instant order. [Paras 10 and 18) [656-G-H; 657-A-
  C; 663-F-G]

        1.2. The reason for declining the claim of the
C respondent for appointment out of the waiting list is
  unjustified. A waiting list would start to operate only after
  the posts for which the recruitment is conducted, have
  been completed. A waiting list would commence to
  operate, when offers of appointment have been issued to
D those emerging on the top of the merit list and after the
  vacancies for which the recruitment process has been
  conducted have been filled up. In the instant case, the
  situation for operating the waiting list had not arisen,
  because one of the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-
E II for which the recruitment process was conducted was
  actually never filled up. [Para 11) [657-E-G]

       1.3. Even if it is assumed, for arguments sake, that all
  the posts for which selection was held were duly filled
F up, the validity of the waiting list, in the facts of the present
  case, has to be determined with reference to 22.4.2008,
  because the offer of appointment to 'T' (the candidate,
  who did not join) was made on 22.4.2008. It is the said
  vacancy, for which the respondent had approached the
  High Court. As against the aforesaid, it is the
G acknowledged position recorded by the appellants in the
  impugned order that the waiting list was valid till May, 2008.
  If 'T' was found eligible for appointment against the
  vacancy in question, out of the waiting list, the respondent
  herein would be equally eligible for appointment against
H
       STATE OF J & K AND ORS. v. SAT PAL               651

the said vacancy. [Para 11) [658-A-D]                          A
     Virender S. Hooda v. State of Haryana (1999) 3 SCC
696; Muku/ Saikia v. State of Assam (2009) 1 SCC 386: 2008
(16) SCR 236 - relied on.
      2.1. The observations made by the High Court in the      B
contempt cases were advisory in nature. Rather than
initiating action against the appellants for having missed
the point, while considering the claim of the respondent
in contempt jurisdiction, the High Court in its wisdom,
required the appellants to correct the mistake committed       C
by the appellants. The High Court did not, in the first
instance, initiate any coercive action against the
appellants. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it is
apparent that the appellants unnecessarily preferred a
letters patent appeal to assail the order of the High Court    D
on a technical plea that the High Court in exercise of its
contempt jurisdiction could not have dealt with the merits
of the claim of the respondent. [Para 14) [661-0-G]
     Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. (2004)
7 SCC 261: 2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 740; V.M. Manohar               E
Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju and Anr: (2004) 13 SCC 61 O;
Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and Ors. v. Chunila/
Nanda and Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 399: 2006 (2) Suppl. SCR 986
- referred to.
                                                               F
     2.2. Though the technical pleas raised by the
 appellants are fully legitimate but in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, the Court would not
 invoke the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India, for debating and deciding the           G
technical pleas advanced by the appellants. The court
would rather invoke its jurisdiction under Article 142 of
the Constitution of India for doing complete justice in the
instant case. Entertaining the instant appeals would
defeat the ends of justice for which the respondent had
approached the High Court. Entertaining the objections         H
    652      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013) 2 S.C.R.

A filed by the appellants would result in deviating from the
  merits of the claim raised by the respondent before the
  High Court. [Para 16) [662-E-G]

       2.3. The State is not an adversary, and ought not
B have behaved in the manner, it has chosen, in the facts
  and circumstances of the instant case. In the first
  instance, it failed to even file a response before the High
  Court, to the writ petition preferred by the respondent. In
  order to ensure that justice to the respondent was not
  delayed, the High Court, instead of adjudicating the
C matter on merits, considered it just and appropriate to
  direct the appointing authority to consider the claim of the
  respondent, consequent upon 'T' having declined to join
  the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II. Mainly
  because, the respondent had approached the High Court
D for relief, the appellants rejected his claim for wholly
  unreasonable grounds. Rather than focusing on the
  merits of the claim raised by the respondent, the
  appellants chose to initiate proceedings which would
  deviate the legal process from the merits of the claim of
E the respondent. [Para 17) [662-G-H; 663-A-C]
                         Case Law Reference:
          (1999) 3 sec 696          relied on        Para 13

F         2008 (16) SCR 236         relied on        Para 13
          2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 740 · referred to      Para 15
          (2004) 13 sec 610         referred to      Para 15
          2006 (2) Suppl. SCR 986 referred to        Para 15
G
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
    938-939 of 2013.
      From the Judgment & Order dated 03.04.2012 of the High
  Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu in LPAC No. 2 of 2012
H & CMP No. :r of 2012.
       STATE OF J & K AND ORS. v. SAT PAL                    653


    Gaurav Pachnanda, Sunil Fernandes, Vernika Tomar,                A
Astha Sharma, Rahul Sharma, lnsha Mir for the Appellants.

     Sakal Bhushan, P.D. Sharma for the Respondent.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                     B
     JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 1. Leave granted.

      2. The Public Works Department of the State of Jammu
& Kashmir conducted a process of selection, for recruitment
against the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II. Sat Pal,      c
the respondent herein participated in the aforesaid process of
selection. He was successful, inasmuch as, he figured in the
final merit/select list of scheduled caste candidates, prepared
at the culmination of the selection process. Having learnt that
some scheduled cast candidates above him in the merit/select         D
list had not joined inspite of having been offered appointment,
Sat Pal addressed a representation to the appellants seeking
appointment against an available vacancy. In his
representation, he mentioned the name of Trilok Nath as one
of the selected candidates, who had been offered appointment,
but had not joined. In his representation, he also pointed out,      E
that in the merit/select list pertaining for scheduled caste
candidates, his name figured immediately after the name of the
said Trilok Nath.

       3. Since the representation filed by the respondent           F
 remained undecided, he approached the High Court of Jammu
 & Kashmir at Jammu (hereinafter referred to as, the High Court)
 by filing SWP no. 1156 of 2009. Before the High Court, the
 respondent Sat Pal reiterated the factual position asserted by
 him in his representation. To substantiate his assertion            G
pertaining to Trilok Nath, that although the aforesaid Trilok Nath
had been offered appointment against the post of Junior
Engineer (Civil) Grad!=!-11 on 22.4.2008, Trilok Nath had not
ioined against the same, he placed before the High Court a
communication dated 5.5.2008 issued by the Chief Engineer            H
    654      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A   (R&B) Department, Jammu, narrating that Trilok Nath was not
    interested to join against the post of Junior Engineer (Civil)
    Grade-II.

       4. Before the High Court, the respondent relied upon the
B prevalent rule, whereunder, a waiting list was valid for one year.
  The fact that the prevalent rules envisaged, that the merit list of
  candidates in continuation of those offered appointment, would
  constitute the waiting list, and would be valid for a period of one
  year, was not disputed even before us.

C        5. Despite the High Court having issued notice to the State
  Government in SWP no.1156 of 2009, and had required it to
  file pleadings, the State Government i.e., the appellants before
  this Court, did not file any objections. The right of the appellants
  to file objections was closed by an order dated 5.4.2010. In the
D aforesaid view of the matter, it was natural for the High Court
  to infer, that the assertions made by the respondent before it,
  were truthful and acceptable for a final determination of the
  controversy. Despite the aforesaid, the High Court disposed
  of the aforesaid writ petition at the admission stage, by
E directing the appointing authority to examine the claim of the
  respondent, for appointment against the post of Junior
  Engineer (Civil) Grade-II, by keeping in mind the communication
  dated 5.5.2008 issued by the Chief Engineer (R&B)
   Department, Jammu, affirming that Trilok Nath, who was offered
F appointment against the post under reference, had declined to
  join. The High Court required the appellants herein to take a
  final decision in respect of the appointment of the respondent,
  within a period of two months, from the date a copy of the order
  of the High Court was made available.

G         6. In compliance of the directions issued by the High Court
    vide order dated 9.8.2010 in SWP no. 1156 of 2009, the
    appellants passed an order on 23.8.2011. By the said order
    dated 23.8.2011, the claim of the respondent for appointment
    against the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II was rejected
H   for the following reasons:-
       STATE OF J & K AND ORS. v. SAT PAL                   655
           [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
     "(i)   In view of the fact that the waiting list issued in    A
            respect of the recruitment has outlived its validity
            way back in May, 2008 itself, he cannot be granted
            appointment in accordance with the same.

     (ii)   And that for the abovesaid reason, vacancies
                                                                   8
            cannot be filled at a belated stage."

     7. Aggrieved by the rejectiori order dated 23.8.2011,
rather than assailing the same by way of a fresh writ petition,
the respondent filed Contempt (SWP) no. 157 of 2011. The
aforesaid contempt petition was disposed of by the High Court      C
vide order dated 29.10.2011, with the following observations:-

    "The claim of the petitioner for his appointment as Junior
    Engineer (Civil) Grade-II arose during the validity of select
                                                •
    list/wait list. The duty was cast on the competent    authority, D
    who was seized of the select list/wait list to fill up the
    vacancies from the wait list, but it failed to perform its duty.
    It is not the fault of the petitioner that his claim for
    appointment was not considered during the validity of
    select list/wait list. The fault is committed by the authority E
    and the petitioner cannot penalized for the same. The claim
    of the petitioner on merits deserved to be allowed for
    being appointed on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil)
    Grade-II when select list/wait list was in operation. Same
    having not been done despite request having been made,
    his right of consideration for being appointed would thus
                                                                     F,
    survive though such claim was considered by the
    Government after the expiry of the validity period of select
    list/wait list.

           Consideration order issued by the Government does G
    not comply with the court directions. Before initiating action
    for framing rule in this contempt petition, it will be
    appropriate to afford an opportunity to the respondents to
    consider the whole issue and pass orders in accordance
    with judgment of the Court. Four week's time is granted to H
             .656 .   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       · (2013) 2 S.C.R.
                       '             '



     A           ·the respondents to reconsider the whole issue in the light
                  of the observations made hereinabove and file compliance
                  report by or before next date."     ·        ·

             . ·. 8. The appellants herein were aggri~ved by the order
           passed by the High Court in Contempt (SWP) no. 157 of 2011
     8
         · filed by the respondent, since· the appellants felt, that the
           directions in the nature recorded by the High Court (in the order
      - extracted hereinabove); were not permissible in exercise of
           coritemptjur'isdiciion. It is, therefore, that the appellants
     C .. preferred.a letters patent appeal (LPAC no.2 of2012) to assail
           the ordef dated 29.10.2011 passed by the High Court in
         · Con'tempt (SWP) no: 157 of.2011. The letters patent bench,
           by its order dated 3.4.2012, held the said letters patent appeal
           as not maintainable. The orders passed by the High Court
(
        . dated 29.10.2011 and 3.4.2012 have been assailed by the
     0 , appellants before this Court, by way of present appeals.
         '                 ,                 .   I   _   I,   .      ·~,   ~



              9. The controversy in hand is yet another illustration of the
         ·denial of a legitimate claim, of an innocent citizen. Rather than
          appreciating. the .claim raised by the. respondent before the
    'E. High Court.through SWP'no.1156 of 2009, to which the
          appellants failed to even file their response, the same was
          ordered to be closed by an order dated 5.4.2010. Thereupon
          appellants have chosen to pursue a course, which would
          sideline the niairi controversy. The course adopted would
     F , neither serve their own purpose, nor the purpose of the
       · respondent Sat Pal. · · ·            . · , .· ·    · . ..

               1O. It is not a--matter of dispute, that the respondent Sat
          Pal participated in a process of selection for recruitment
          against the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II. It is also
      G not in.dispute, that his name figured in the merit/select list of
       1
          scheduled caste candidates. Trilok Nath, who had been offered
          appointment against the posi of Junior Engineer{Civil) Grade-
         ·11 on 22.4.2008, did not join, despite the said offer of
          appointment. The instant fact is fully substantiated from the
    · H order dated 5.5.2008 issued by the Chief Engineer (R&B)
       STATE OF J & K AND ORS. v. SAT PAL                   657
           [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
Department, Jammu. Even though candidates who were higher A
in merit, were offered appointment to the post of Junior
Engineer (Civil) Grade-II, for which recruitment was held, some
of such posts remained vacant on account of the fact that
persons higher in merit to the respondent Sat Pal had declined
to join, despite having been offered appointment. Atleast one B
such vacancy offered to Trilok Nath never came to be filled up.
In such a situation, the claim of the respondent Sat Pal whose
name figured in the merit/select list, ought to have been offered
appointment against the said post. The claim of respondent Sat
Pal could not have been repudiated, specially on account of his c
assertion, that his name in the merit/select list amongst
Scheduled Caste candidates immediately below the name of
Trilok Nath, was not disputed even in the pleadings before this
Court. It is not the case of the appellants before this Court, that
any other candidate higher than Sat Pal in the merit/select list D
is available out of Scheduled Caste candidates, and can be
offered the post against which Trilok Nath had not joined.

     11. In view of the factual position noticed hereinabove, the
reason indicated by the appellants in declining the claim of the
respondent Sat Pal for appointment out of the waiting list is E
clearly unjustified. A waiting list would start to operate only after
the posts for which the recruitment is conducted, have been
completed. A waiting list would commence to operate, when
offers of appointment have been issued to those emerging on
the top of the merit list. The existence of a waiting list, allows F
room to the appointing authority to fill up vacancies which arise
during the subsistence of the waiting list. A waiting list
commences to operate, after the vacancies for which the
recruitment process has been conducted have been filled up.
In the instant controversy the aforesaid situation for operating G
the waiting list had not arisen, because one of the posts of
Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II for which the recruitment
process was conducted was actually never filled up. For the
reason that Trilok Nath had not assumed charge, one of the
posts for which the process of recruitment was conducted, had H
    658       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 2 S.C.R.

A   remained vacant. That apart, even if it is assumed for arguments
    sake, that all the posts for which the process of selection was
    conducted were duly filled up, it cannot be disputed that Trilok
    Nath who had participated in the same selection process as
    the respondent herein, was offered appointment against the
B   post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II on 22.4.2008. The
    aforesaid offer was made, consequent upon his selection in the
    said process of recruitment. The validity of the waiting list, in
    the facts of this case, has to be determined with reference to
    22.4.2008, because the vacancy was offered to Trilok Nath on
c   22.4.2008. It is the said vacancy, for which the respondent had
    approached the High Court. As against the aforesaid, it is the
    acknowledged position recorded by the appellants in the
    impugned order dated 23.8.2011 (extracted above}, that the
    waiting list was valid till May, 2008. If Trilok Nath was found
    eligible for appointment against the vacancy in question out of
0
    the same waiting list, the respondent herein would be equally
    eligible for appointment against the said vacancy. This would
    be the unquestionable legal position, in so far as the present
    controversy is concerned.

E         12. The date of filing of the representation by the parties
    concerned and/or the date on which the competent authority
    chooses to fill up the vacancy in question, is of no consequence
    whatsoever. The only relevant date is the date of arising of the
    vacancy. It would be a different legal proposition, if the
F   appointing authority decides not to fill up an available vacancy,
    despite the availability of candidates on the waiting list. The
    offer made to Trilok Nath on 22.4.2008 by itself, leads to the
    inference that the vacancy under reference arose within the
    period of one year, i.e., during the period of validity of the
G   waiting list postulated by the rules. The offer of the vacancy to
    Trilok Nath, negates the proposition posed above, i.e., the
    desire of the employer not to fill up the vacancy. Herein, the
    appellants wished to fill up the vacancy under reference.
    Moreover, this is not a case where the respondent was seeking
H   appointment against a vacancy, over and above the posts for
       STATE OF J & K AND ORS. v. SAT PAL                   659
           [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
which the process of selection/ recruitment was conducted.          A
Based on the aforesaid inference, we have no hesitation in
concluding that the appellants ought to have appointed the
respondent Sat Pal, against the vacancy which was offered to
Trilok Nath.
                                                                    B
     13. The issue arising for consideration herein, has already
been adjudicated upon by this Court. In the first instance
reference may be made to the decision rendered by this Court
in Virender S. Hooda v. State of Haryana (1999) 3 SCC 696.
In the instant case administrative instructions envisag~d. that     C
vacancies which came into existence within six months of the
date of recommendation by the Public Service Commission,
could be filled up from the earlier process of selection. The
observations made by this Court on the instant issue, in the
aforesaid background, are being extracted below:
                                                                    D
    " ..... The fact that there were further vacancies available
    and when 9 vacancies were advertised to be filled up
    within a period of six months after announcement of the
    previous selection cannot be disputed at all. In terms of the
    circulars issued by the Government on 22.3.1957 and             E
    26.5.1972 when such vacancies arise within six months
    from the receipt of the recommendation of the Public
    Service Commission they have to be filled up out of the
    waiting list maintained by the Commission. In respect of
    the vacancies which arise after the expiry of six months it     F
    is necessary to send the requisition to the Commission. It
    is also made clear that if the Commission makes
    recommendations regarding a post to the Department and
    additional vacancies occur in the Department within a
    period of six months on the receipt of the                      G
    recommendations, then the vacancies which occur later on
    can be filled in from amongst the additional candidates
    recommended by the Commission. It is urged on behalf
    of the appellants that letter dated 7 .1.1992 indicated that
    the cadre strength in the Haryana Civil Service (Executive
                                                                    H
    660      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A         Branch) was 440 and the officers filling these posts were
          around 129 and there was a shortfall of 111 and 23 posts
          had to be filled up by direct recruitment. Thus 12 posts for
          direct recruitment were vacant when the advertisement for
          recruitment was made which was held in 1991. Therefore,
B         the appellants' case ought to have been considered when
          some of the vacancies arose by reason of non-
          appointment of some of the candidates. Therefore, the
          Government ought to have considered the case of the
          appellants as per the rank obtained by them and the
c         appellants had to be appointed if they came within the
          range of selection. Thus when these vacancies arise within
          the period of six months from the date of previous selection
          the circulars are attracted and hence the view of the High
          Court that vacancies arose after selection process
          commenced has no relevance and is contrary to the
D
          declared policy of the Government in the matter to fill up
          such posts from the waiting list."

  This Court has also considered the same issue wherein there
  were no rules/administrative instructions for filling up vacancies
E from the waiting list. While examining the aforesaid issue this
  Court in Muku/ Saikia v. State of Assam, (2009) 1 SCC 386,
  held as under:

          "At the outset it should be noticed that the select list
F         prepared by APSC could be used to fill the notified
          vacancies and not future vacancies. If the requisition and
          advertisement was only for 27 posts, the State cannot
          appoint more than the number of posts advertised, even
          though APSC had prepared a select list of 64 candidates.
          The select list got exhausted when all the 27 posts were
G
          filled. Thereafter, the candidates below the 27 appointed
          candidates have no right to claim appointment to any
          vacancy in regard to which selection was not held. The fact
          that evidently and admittedly the names of the appellants
          appeared in the select list dated 17. 7.2000 below the
H
         STATE OF J & K AND ORS. v. SAT PAL                   663
             [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
matter could have been adjudicated on merits, had the High            A
Court chosen to do so. In order to ensure that justice to the
respondent was not delayed, the High Court considered it just
and appropriate to direct the appointing authority to consider
the claim of the respondent, consequent upon Trilok Nath having
declined to join the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II.        8
Mainly because, the respondent Sat Pal had approached the
High Court for relief, the appellants rejected his claim for wholly
unreasonable grounds. Rather than focusing on the merits of
the claim raised by respondent Sat Pal, the appellants chose
to initiate proceedings which would deviate the legal process         C
from the merits of the claim of respondent. Had we issued
notice to respondent Sat Pal based on the technical pleas
raised by the appellants, the respondent Sat Pal may not even
have been in a position to defend himself before this Court.
Litigation before this Court, is an expensive proposition. A poor
scheduled caste candidate cannot be subjected to unnecessary          0
harassment at the hands of the mighty State. It is for the
aforesaid reasons, that the instant order is being passed, for
doing complete justice in the instant cause.

     18. In view of the factual and legal position discussed by       E
us hereinabove, we are of the view, that in the facts and
circumstances of this case, it would be just and appropriate to
direct the appellants to appoint the respondent Sat Pal against
the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II. The aforesaid offer
of appointment will relate back to the permissible date               F
contemplated under the rules laying down conditions of service
of the cadre to which the respondent Sat Pal will be appointed.
Naturally, the respondent will be entitled to seniority immediately
below those who were appointed from the same process of
selection. Since Sat Pal has not discharged his duties, he would      G
be entitled to wages only with effect from the date of the instant
order.

     19. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
K.K.T.                                    Appeals disposed of.        H