Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAVI RANJAN, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Jagdish Prasad Yadav – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 334 of 2021, I.A. No. 6332 of 2021
Decided On : 13-12-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Appeal – Power of high court to issue certain writs – Facts of case, which is required to be enumerated – Consequential benefits for period – Proposition of law laid down – Held, Fact remains that as has been referred herein above that it is respondents who denied opportunity to writ petitioner to discharge his duty and once on basis of fact State is at fault in not allowing writ petitioner to discharge his duty, for its own fault State cannot be allowed to take advantage – Therefore, this Court, after applying ratio laid down by hon’ble Apex Court , is of the view that in facts and circumstances of the case, principle of ‘no work no pay’ will not be applicable – Learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the facts in entirety as discussed hereinabove is correct in quashing part of orders whereby and whereunder applying the principle of ‘no work no pay’ payment of salary for period has been denied – Appeal dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The instant intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred against the order/judgment dated 01.02.2021 in W.P. (S) No. 2210 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has quashed order dated 30.09.2015 and 23.06.2015 in part, so far observation with respect to ‘no work no pay’ is concerned; and held that the petitioner is entitled to get the consequential benefits for the period 01.03.1996 to 25.03.1999 and 14.08.2000 to 19.03.2002 within a period of twelve weeks.
2. The brief facts of the case, which is required to be enumerated, read as hereunder:
However, when the order passed by the Court was not complied with, a contempt petition being M.J.C. No. 890 of 1993 was filed by the writ petitioner. Pursuant thereto the petitioner was allowed to join his duty vide order dated 29.09.1993 w.e.f. 22.02.1993. Accordingly, he joined on 27.12.1993.
But the petitioner was again terminated on 20.02.1996. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C No. 1006 of 1993 which was allowed. But when the order passed by the Court was not complied with the petitioner filed contempt petition being MJC No. 376 of 1999. Thereafter, the petitioner was allowed to join vide letter dated 24.03.1999. Again, the writ petitioner was dismissed from service on 14.08.2000 against which he represented before the authorities concerned, who reinstated him in service vide order dated 19.03.2002.
It is case of the petitioner though services of the petitioner was regularized vide order dated 30.09.2015 and 23.06.2015 for the period he remained out of service i.e. 01.03.1996 to 25.03.1999 and 14.08.2000 to 19.03.2002 but was denied salary for the said period, for which he filed writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2210 of 2018.
The writ petitioner has taken the ground that when there is no fault on his part rather the State authorities had deprived the writ petitioner from discharging his duty, the principle of ‘no work no pay’ will not apply in the case at hand. However, without taking into this aspect of the matter, the salary for the aforesaid period i.e. 01.03.1996 to 25.03.1999 and 14.08.2000 to 19.03.2002 has been denied which is absolutely illegal and improper decision for the reason that on the one hand the State authorities have regularized the services of the petitioner for the aforesaid period while on the other hand has denied to make payment of salary for the aforesaid period.
The State had taken the plea that since the writ petitioner had not discharged duty for the aforesaid period as such the authority after taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and applying the principle of ‘no work no pay’ is correct in taking such decision by denying the salary for the aforesaid period.
The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the parties held that the writ petitioner was forcefully deprived from discharging his duty; and since similarly situated persons have been extended the benefit, quashed impugned orders dated 30.09.2015 and 23.06.2015 whereby salary for the interregnum period was denied on the ground of ‘no work no pay’ which is the subject matter of present intra-court appeal.
3. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned A.A.G. II appearing for the appellants-State referring to the pr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
