Summary
The Court set aside an award of 50% back wages to a medical officer who had not joined his allocated posting for about thirteen years while pursuing a preferred location and private practice. The earlier direction to issue a fresh posting had expressly left back wages open. The Court also deprecated unnecessary personal summons to officials, particularly in contempt proceedings after the underlying order had been stayed, while preserving summons in compelling situations.
Issues
- Whether an earlier order for fresh posting required payment of back wages despite the officer’s failure to join the assigned station.
- What restraint courts should exercise when requiring personal attendance of public officers.
Held
- The officer’s relieving order implemented the common allocation and posting order. Reporting to the Director and requesting a preferred station did not excuse failure to join at Badaun. The Court rejected feigned ignorance of that posting; the officer should first have joined and then sought transfer if permissible. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 21)
- The earlier judgment had expressly reserved back wages, so finality of the posting direction did not decide that entitlement. The officer’s prolonged deliberate absence, litigation history and gainful private practice made the 50% award an unjustified benefit from his own wrong. The State was also criticised for failing to act promptly on the absence. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15)
- Once operation of the order alleged to be disobeyed was stayed, continuing contempt-related demands for officers’ presence served no compliance purpose. The Court’s earlier order had stayed those proceedings and dispensed with attendance, with any occasion for revival to be placed before another judge. (¶ 16)
- Frequent and unnecessary summons to public officers impede administration and should not be used to pressure executive decisions. Personal attendance remains available in compelling circumstances; ordinarily, courts should record unanswered questions and allow time for a response through the State’s counsel. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)
- The High Court orders granting back wages were set aside and the State’s appeal allowed without costs. (¶ 21)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court orders awarding 50% back wages set aside. No order as to costs.