om:78-cl-2020-July — Applicant while working as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) from 13-5-2010, was terminated by Order, dated 12-1-2011. But her termination order was quashed by Court. She now prays for salary for the period from February, 2011 till 23-3-2014 when she was reinstated as her termination was found to be illegal. Tribunal found no adequate justification to grant her request. Hence the OA is dismissed

GDS Rules

Applicant while working as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) from 13-5-2010, was terminated by Order, dated 12-1-2011. But her termination order was quashed by Court. She now prays for salary for the period from February, 2011 till 23-3-2014 when she was reinstated as her termination was found to be illegal. Tribunal found no adequate justification to grant her request. Hence the OA is dismissed — This chunk is about an Applicant who was employed as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) from May 13, 2010, but was terminated in January 2011. The termination order was later quashed by a court, and the applican... — Facts: Applicant who was appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) joined service on 30-6-2010. One of the conditions in the order was that, her service may be terminated by either side informing the other side and that her service is governed by GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 as amended from time-to-time.
Her service was terminated and she was asked to hand over her charge on 20-1-2011. Against the termination order, she (Applicant) approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 42 of 2011. Tribunal by its Order, dated 5-12-2011 (A/5) set aside the termination order and also upheld by High Court. She was reinstated on 24-3-2014.
Applicant on reinstatement requested for salary for the period from February, 2011 till 23-3-2014 since her termination was found to be illegal.
Respondents state that since she had not worked during the period of termination, she is not entitled to any pay and allowance on the principle of "No work No pay".
Termination of her duty was by the Respondents which is an unilateral action and hence she is entitled for salary during the termination period, states the Applicant.
Applicant was reinstated by order of Tribunal, dated 5-12-2011. It is clear from that order that "the relief of consequential service and financial benefits were not allowed which was the order of the High court on appeal by Respondents".

om:78-cl-2020-July — Applicant while working as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) from 13-5-2010, was terminated by Order, dated 12-1-2011. But her termination order was quashed by Court. She now prays for salary for the period from February, 2011 till 23-3-2014 when she was reinstated as her termination was found to be illegal. Tribunal found no adequate justification to grant her request. Hence the OA is dismissed

GDS Rules

Applicant while working as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) from 13-5-2010, was terminated by Order, dated 12-1-2011. But her termination order was quashed by Court. She now prays for salary for the period from February, 2011 till 23-3-2014 when she was reinstated as her termination was found to be illegal. Tribunal found no adequate justification to grant her request. Hence the OA is dismissed — This chunk is about an Applicant who was employed as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) from May 13, 2010, but was terminated in January 2011. The termination order was later quashed by a court, and the applican... — Facts: Applicant who was appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) joined service on 30-6-2010. One of the conditions in the order was that, her service may be terminated by either side informing the other side and that her service is governed by GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 as amended from time-to-time.
Her service was terminated and she was asked to hand over her charge on 20-1-2011. Against the termination order, she (Applicant) approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 42 of 2011. Tribunal by its Order, dated 5-12-2011 (A/5) set aside the termination order and also upheld by High Court. She was reinstated on 24-3-2014.
Applicant on reinstatement requested for salary for the period from February, 2011 till 23-3-2014 since her termination was found to be illegal.
Respondents state that since she had not worked during the period of termination, she is not entitled to any pay and allowance on the principle of "No work No pay".
Termination of her duty was by the Respondents which is an unilateral action and hence she is entitled for salary during the termination period, states the Applicant.
Applicant was reinstated by order of Tribunal, dated 5-12-2011. It is clear from that order that "the relief of consequential service and financial benefits were not allowed which was the order of the High court on appeal by Respondents".

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text