Patna High Court Directs Payment For Work Done Beyond Contract Period Despite No Extension Order, Notes Dept Was Benefited By Work
The Patna HC has held that an employee cannot be denied remuneration for work performed beyond the contractual period merely because there was no formal order extending the contract, where the Department had taken the work and benefited from it.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Dr. Anshuman was hearing a writ petition filed by the widow of a former Chief Aircraft Engineer of the Civil Aviation Department, Government of Bihar, challenging the order dated 06.11.2020 passed by the Principal Secretary-cum-2nd Appellate Authority, Cabinet Secretariat Department.
The petitioner's husband had retired as Chief Aircraft Engineer on 31.12.1998 and was subsequently reappointed on a contractual basis for five years. His contractual terms were changed in 2008.
The petitioner submitted that her husband continued working in the Civil Aviation Department until 30.04.2011, including for one month and ten days beyond the contractual period. During this period, he was assigned emergent duties, including special inspection of State Aircraft C-90 A/B and Aircraft VT-EBG at Mumbai during maintenance and repair. However, he was not paid remuneration for the additional one month and ten days.
The petitioner's husband had approached the Public Grievance Redressal Officer, Cabinet Secretariat Department, and thereafter pursued first and second appeals. The authorities rejected the claim on the ground that he had worked beyond the contractual period without any office order or prior approval.
The State reiterated before the High Court that since he had worked beyond the contract without permission from the Department, he was not entitled to payment.
The High Court, however, noted from the departmental records that work had in fact been taken from the petitioner's husband after expiry of the contract and that the Department was aware of the work being performed. The Court observed:
“In the emergent situation, the husband of the petitioner worked for the Civil Aviation Department, by which the Civil Aviation Department was benefited.”
The Court further noted that none of the orders passed by the authorities, including the first and second appellate authorities, indicated that the petitioner's husband had not worked during the disputed period.
It therefore held that he had worked for one month and ten days and was entitled to remuneration for that period. Following his death, his widow was entitled to receive the amount.
The Court accordingly directed the Principal Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, Civil Aviation Department, Government of Bihar, to ensure payment to the petitioner for one month and ten days within 60 days from receipt of the order.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed.
Appearance:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Brajesh Verma, Advocate; Ms. Raveena Nidhi Karn, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Zeyaul Hoda, GA-20; Mr. Abu Nasar, AC to GA-20.