SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2283

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J. Rajesh Shankar, J.
The State of Jharkhand - Appellants
Versus
Dr. Natwa Hansdak, son of Late Pradhan Hansdal - Respondent
L.P.A. No. 222 of 2025
Decided On :  14-10-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr.S.C.-I Mr. Aditya Kumar, A.C. to Sr.S.C.-I
Mr. Abhijeet Anand, A.C. to Sr.S.C.-I
For the Respondent:Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate

The principle of 'No Work No Pay' cannot be invoked by an employer to deny salary where the employee's absence from duty is a direct consequence of an unjustified or arbitrary administrative order, as the default in reporting for work is caused by the employer's own failure in fair administration.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 - Rule 180(a), (b), 236 and 248(e) - Principle of 'No Work No Pay' - Applicability - Absence from duty - An employee cannot be denied salary for a period of absence when the failure to report for duty is directly attributable to the fault of the employer or is based on a justifiable grievance - The commutation of absence to extraordinary leave under statutory rules is not intended to penalize an employee when the absence is necessitated by an inherently unfair or arbitrary administrative transfer order. (Paras 27, 29, 30)

(B) Transfer - Administrative Order - Seniority violation - A public servant is not required to submit to a transfer order that bypasses established seniority norms, such as being placed under the charge of a significantly junior officer, without a cogent or justifiable reason - While the employee is generally required to join the posting first, an exception exists where the transfer order itself is demonstrably unreasonable. (Paras 22, 23)

Facts of the case:
A public servant was transferred to an institution where a noticeably junior officer was appointed as the head. Consequently, the servant challenged the transfer and did not report for duty. The authority later treated the long period of absence as extraordinary leave, denying the servant salary under the 'No Work No Pay' principle. The lower court directed the consideration of the salary claim, which was challenged by the authorities in this appeal.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the authority's application of the 'No Work No Pay' principle was unsustainable because the respondent's absence was not willful misconduct but a direct result of an inequitable administrative action. The rules allowing for the commutation of absence to extraordinary leave cannot be weaponized against an employee when the state apparatus is at fault. The respondent had a valid grievance regarding the transfer, and the delay in salary payment was unjustified.

Issues: The main issues were whether a public servant is entitled to salary for an absence period caused by a contentious transfer order and whether the administration may retrospectively categorize such absence as extraordinary leave to forfeit pay.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an employee’s failure to join a new posting is justified by an arbitrary or seniority-violating administrative order, the 'No Work No Pay' doctrine is inapplicable. The administration cannot rely on service code provisions for extraordinary leave to justify financial penalties when the cause of absence rests in the employer's own faulty administrative policy.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual overview of service transfer disputes and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. application of 'no work, no pay' and employee's duty to comply with transfer. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. review and reconciliation of previous judicial orders regarding transfer legality. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. employer fault precludes 'no work no pay' and restrictive rule commutation. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
5. final dismissal of the appeal affirming the impugned order. (Para 32 , 33)

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Shankar, J. :

The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 22.10.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4453 of 2024 which has been disposed of directing the writ petitioner/respondent to file a fresh representation before the respondent nos. 2 and 3 of the said case (appellant nos. 2 and 3 herein) and the appellant no. 3 - the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher & Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi has been directed to consider the said representation and to pass order for payment of salary to the writ petitioner/respondent for the period from 01.04.2021 to 18.02.2022 (total 324 days).

2. The factual background of the case is that the respondent was initially appointed to the post of Lecturer in the year 1987. He, while working on the post of Technical Officer at Jharkhand Council On Science, Technology & Innovation (JCSTI), Ranchi, was transferred to the Government Polytechnic, Adityapur as Lecturer vide notification as contained in memo no. 352 dated 12.03.2021 and by the same notification, one Rewati Raman Upadhyay (12 years junior to the respondent) posted as Lecturer (Metallurgy) in Government Polytechnic, Dhanbad, was transferred to the Government Polytechnic, Adityapur on the same post with additional charge of the Principal of the said institution. Pursuant to the said notification, the respondent did not join the said post and he filed representation dated 15.03.2021 raising objection against his transfer order.

3. The respondent subsequently filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1509 of 2021 assailing his transfer order which was disposed of vide order dated 29.11.2021 directing the appellants to take decision on the respondent’s representation dated 15.03.2021 with respect to the order of his transfer as well as payment of salary for the period he remained absent.

4. In the light of the order dated 29.11.2021 passed in the aforesaid writ petition and considering the respondent’s representation dated 15.03.2021, his earlier transfer notification was superseded vide subsequent notification no. 185 dated 17.02.2022 and he was transferred to Rajkiya Mahila Polytechnic, Ranchi as In-charge Principal from where he superannuated on 31.01.2023.

5. Thereafter, a reasoned order as contained in memo No. 854 dated 28.08.2023 was issued under the signature of the Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand whereby it was decided that the period of absence from duty pertaining to the respondent i.e. from 01.04.2021 to 18.02.2022 (total 324 days) would be treated as extraordinary leave and he would not be paid salary for the said period on the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’.

6. Being aggrieved with the reasoned order dated 28.08.2023, the respondent filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4453 of 2024 seeking direction to the appellants to make payment of salary for the said period of absence from duty with all consequential benefits. The said writ petition was disposed of vide impugned order dated 22.10.2024 directing the respondent to file fresh representation and the same was directed to be decided by the appellant no. 3 in accordance with law.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the guidelines have been issued by the State Government vide departmental resolution No. 2001 dated 13.08.2015 regulating the transfer/posting of Le

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top