ORDER :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This writ appeal is directed against the part of the impugned judgment & order dated 7-12-2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S)No.6690/2014, by which while setting aside the order of termination from service, the writ appellant herein / writ petitioner has been held dis-entitled for back-wages applying the principle of “no work no pay”.

2. This part of the order has been questioned by the writ appellant on the following factual backdrop: -

3. The writ appellant herein was in Government service and he was serving on the post of Assistant Internal Audit & Taxation Officer posted at Janpad Panchayat, Bhaiyathan, District Surguja at the relevant point of time when he was charge-sheeted on account of alleged misconduct. A detailed departmental enquiry was conducted against the appellant herein in accordance with the provisions contained in the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and accordingly, the order of termination was passed on 5-4-2010. The said order of termination was confirmed by the appellate authority – Director (Panchayat) on 30-9-2014, as such, services of the appellant stood terminated. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied against the order of termination as confirmed by the appellate authority, the appellant preferred W.P.(S)No.6690/2014 before this Court, which the learned Single Judge allowed partly and set aside the order of termination affirmed by the appellate authority by order dated 30-9-2014 and directed that the appellant shall be entitled for counting of six years’ service, which he has been out of employment, for all other purposes and thereby granted continuity of service and other benefits, however, declined to grant back-wages to him invoking the principle of “no work no pay”, which is sought to be challenged by way of this writ appeal.

4. Mr. Palash Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the writ appellant herein, would submit that the learned Single Judge having set aside the order of termination ought to have granted full back-wages to the appellant in view of the provisions contained in Fundamental Rule 54-A and wrongly invoked the principle of “no work no pay”, which is not applicable, as there is express provision in F.R. 54-A, as the order of removal having been set aside by the writ court. In that view of the matter, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed.

5. Mr. Amrito Das, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State / respondents No.1, 2 & 3, would support the impugned order and submit that since the appellant did not work for the period in question, the principle of “no work no pay” has rightly been invoked, as such, the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

7. The order of termination passed by the competent authority dated 5-4-2010 has duly been confirmed by the appellate authority on 30-9-2014. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of termination as confirmed by the appellate authority and granted all other service benefits to the petitioner therein, but declined to grant back-wages only on the principle of “no work no pay”. Thus, the questions that emanate for consideration would be,

1. Whether the principle of “no work no pay” has rightly been invoked by the learned Single Judge?

2. If no, then what back-wages the writ appellant herein is entitled for?

Answer to the first question: -

8. The principle of 'No Work No Pay' is based upon a fundamental concept in a Law of Contract 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. (See