Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K Agrawal, J., allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to the appellate authority to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of full pay and allowances in light of sub-rule (2) of Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules.
The petitioner herein being Jail Guard was terminated from service by the competent authority, after which he preferred an appeal before the appellate authority on 26-6-2000. which was thereby allowed and the petitioner was reinstated in service, but full pay and allowances from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement was not granted on the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’. This part of order related to not granting full pay and allowances from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement is under challenge in the instant petition.
Counsel for the petitioner that full pay and allowances from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement ought to have been granted to the petitioner in the light of Rule 54 (2) of the Fundamental Rules, whereas it has not been granted on the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’, as such, the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ would not be applicable.
Counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellate authority has considered the facts and circumstances of the case and rightly held that the petitioner is not entitled to full pay and allowances on the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’.
The Court observed that the Fundamental Rules specially sub-rule (2) of Rule 54 clearly entitles the Government servant for full pay and allowances in case of full exoneration. The court further observed that the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ is based upon a fundamental concept in a Law of Contact of Employment namely wages and salary are paid by the employer in consideration of work/service rendered by the employee. ‘No Work No Pay’ principle has been laid down keeping in view public interest that a Government servant who does not discharge his duty is not allowed pay and arrears at the cost of public exchequer.
The Court relied on judgment Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah, (2007) 7 SCC 689 wherein it was observed that “principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ is not absolute in a given case, if it is that the person was willing to work but he was illegally and unlawfully not allowed to do so, the Court may in the circumstances, direct the authority to grant him all benefits considering “as if he had worked”.
The Court held “the part of impugned order dated 31.8.2010 holding the petitioner to be not entitled for full pay and allowances from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement is hereby set aside.”
[Rajendra Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, Writ Petition (S) No.788 of 2012, decided on 23-08-2021]
Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
For Petitioner: Mr H.B. Agrawal and Ms Swati Agrawal
For Respondents/State: Mr Sunil Otwani.