The 'no work, no pay' principle should be applied in service jurisprudence, and retrospective punishment orders are not in accordance with the law.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Kaushalendra Prasad, learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent-State and Mr. Sunil Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 10.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the part of judgment and order dated 25.03.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 121 of 2010 by the learned Single Judge who has been pleased to dispose of the writ petition not to pay the salaries for the period from 08.07.1980 till attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 30.06.1998 and the consequential reliefs and other benefits.

3. The original writ petitioner was Baburam Marandi and upon his death he has been substituted by the present petitioner/appellant.

4. The petitioner/appellant has preferred the writ petition for quashing of the district order dated 09.04.2009 issued pursuant to direction dated 26.03.2009 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Finance), Jharkhand, Ranchi. Prayer was also made for payment of arrears of salaries from November, 1979 to July 1998 and other consequential benefits provided time to time by the Pay Revision Committees as well as time bound promotion benefits. Prayer was also made for fixing the pension and pay the appellant his pension accounting full length of his service from 22.01.1962 to July 1998.

5. The learned Single Judge has been pleased to hold that the original petitioner has not worked during 08.07.1980 onwards till attaining the age of superannuation i.e 30.06.1998, having not taken appropriate steps at relevant point of time and was examined by the appropriate medical board only in the year 1986 and he remained completely silent from 1988 to 1997 and approached the respondent authorities almost at the fag end of his service period and in that view of the matter the learned Single Judge has held that the original petitioner is not entitled to any salary etc. for the intervening period from 08.07.1980 till attaining the age of superannuation i.e 30.06.1998. However, it was held that the original petitioner will be entitled to continuity of service till his attaining the age of superannuation i.e 30.06.1998 only for the purposes of calculation of his pensionable period of service and consequent revision of payable amount. The order dated 09.07.1980 was quashed by the learned Single Judge which was with regard to compulsory retiring the original petitioner on the ground that without holding a departmental enquiry during the service tenure of the original petitioner the said was passed and as per police manual, chapter- 25, paragraph 824 and 828, compulsory retirement is a major punishment and in that view of the matter that order was quashed.

6. Aggrieved with that part of order, present appeal has been has been preferred.

7. Mr. Kaushlendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has not considered that the respondents have harassed and tortured the father of the appellant and they have not permitted to join duty as the respondent no.7 has admitted in the counter-affidavit that the father of the appellant has not brought Medical Board Certificate and such order dated 25.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge not allowing the salary for the said period from 08.07.1980 till attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 30.06.1998 is not correct. He further submits that the Superintendent of Police, Dumka has recorded that leprosy is a contagious disease and a constable suffering from this disease cannot be allowed to perform duty with the other constable until he becomes fully cured. He submits that even after the medical certificate, he was not allowed to join which has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge. He further submits that the father of the appellant earlier moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5390 of 2004 and W.P.(S) No. 121 of 2010 challenging the order of the authority which was passed stating that the father of the appellant was found traceless and continuously absented him fro