Back
2016 Supreme(Jhk) 1119
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN, J.
Mani Bhushan Prasad, son of Shri Ram Krishna Prasad - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(S) No. 5536 of 2007
Decided on : 02-08-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Kumar Agrawal, J.C. to S.C.V
In employment disputes, decisions must be reasoned, consider available leave, and adhere to the principle of natural justice.
Headnote:
No work no pay - Employment Dispute - The court set aside the order that denied the petitioner's salary for a specific period and counted it as extraordinary leave, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a reasoned decision and consideration of available unutilized leave.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the State of Bihar, was relieved to join the State of Jharkhand but joined late due to illness. The State of Jharkhand treated the period of absence as unauthorized and denied the petitioner's salary based on 'No work no pay' principle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was unreasoned, violated the principle of natural justice, and failed to consider the petitioner's medical condition and the Deputy Secretary's recommendation for leave adjustment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the denial of salary, treatment of absence as extraordinary leave, violation of natural justice, and failure to consider medical leave adjustment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a reasoned decision, consideration of medical leave adjustment, and adherence to the principle of natural justice in employment disputes.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, directing the authorities to pass a reasoned order after due consideration of the provisions of Jharkhand Service Code.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.05.2007 vide memo no. 466 by which a decision has been taken that the petitioner is not entitled to get any salary from 15.12.2003 to 05.07.2004, on the basis of “No work no pay” and the said period will be counted as extra ordinary leave for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was employee of the erstwhile State of Bihar. After bifurcation of the cadre, the services of petitioner was allocated to the State of Jharkhand, but in spite of the order of such transfer, the petitioner did not give his joining, with the authority in the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner was relieved by the State of Bihar on 15.12.2003, to enable him to join the State of Jharkhand, but he only joined on 06.07.2004. The said period between 15.12.2003 to 05.07.2004 was treated by the State of Jharkhand as unauthorized absence and the impugned order was passed.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is absolutely bad in law. He submits that the petitioner could not join the service, as he was medically unfit and was advised bed rest by the doctors. It has been submitted that the petitioner got cured, and thereafter, he joined on 06.07.2004. He submits that admittedly there are unutilized medical leave in the credit of the petitioner which should have been adjusted, but without doing so, for the period between 15.12.2003 to 05.07.2004, salary of the petitioner has not been paid, on the basis of the “No work no pay” theory. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed in utter violation of the principle of natural justice and is unreasoned one i.e. no reasoning given as to why the ground taken by the petitioner that he was medically unfit was rejected. He further submits that the recommendation of the Deputy Secretary has also not been considered by the authorities.
4. Counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the order. In fact the petitioner was very much healthy as he had approached the Hon'ble High Court during that period and has only come with the plea of illness to this Court. He submits that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner which is dated 11.03.2006, which the petitioner himself has accepted and has annexed with the writ application. It is also submitted that the petitioner had replied to the said show cause on 25.03.2006, and thereafter, the impugned order was passed. He submits that there is no violation of the principle of natural justice as an opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain his absence. Since the petitioner has failed to explain his absence properly, the impugned order was passed. He lastly submits that there was no application seeking adjustment of his earned leave, so the impugned order has been passed.
5. After hearing the parties and after going through the record, I find that vide order dated 25.04.2007, the respondents have not paid salary to the petitioner from 15.12.2003 to 05.07.2004, on the principle of “No work no pay” and has further counted the said absence period as an extra ordinary leave.
6. It is admitted that the petitioner was absent from duty from 15.12.2003 to 05.07.2004. The reason put forward by the petitioner is that he was unwell during the said period, which prevented him from joining. From the show cause, it is evident that the petitioner was asked to explain his absence only. The said show cause notice did not provide for the consequences which the petitioner has to face. The petitioner replied taking a plea that he was unwell during the said period. After filing the reply, the impugned order was issued.
7. After going through the impugned notification, I find that no reasons has been assigned as to why the plea of illness taken by the petitioner was discarded. Further impugned notification did not whisper nor takes into consideration as to why the show cause filed by the petitioner has been discarded.
8. From the record, I also find that the Deputy Secretary had recommended to
