Back
SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Mulin Marandi, son of late Baburam Marandi – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) :
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 fi
The principle of 'no work, no pay' was applied, and it was held that the appellant was not entitled to salary for the period of unauthorized absence from duty.
Prolonged unauthorized absence from service results in salary forfeiture beyond three years prior to filing a writ petition, while pensionary rights are preserved post-superannuation.
Compulsory retirement without cogent grounds prohibits wage denial for the intervening period.
The principle of 'no work no pay' is not absolute; an employee wrongfully denied work is entitled to benefits.
A reinstated government servant who has been fully exonerated is entitled to full pay and allowances for the period of absence due to wrongful dismissal, as per Rule 54(2) of the Financial Handbook.
The principle of 'no work no pay' is inapplicable when an employee is willing to work but is prevented from doing so by the employer's actions or failure to comply with reinstatement orders, entitlin....
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
