The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Principle of No Work No Pay cannot be invoked when an employee is ready and willing to work but is deprived of the opportunity by the employer.

JUDGMENT

Ritu Bahri, J. - The present petition is for issuance of direction to the respondent to release the salary of the petititioner for the period w.e.f 07.04.2001 to 07.04.2014 which the petitioner was kept away from joining his duties.

2. On notice of the petition, a written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 admitting that the petitioner was appointed in the Prisons Department as Clerk on 18.11.1987 on adhoc basis. The services of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f 01.01.1991. In para No. 2 of the written statement, it was mentioned that the petitioner remained wifully absented from his duty on five different occassions. Thereafter, petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f 25.02.2002 for gross negligence towards his duties. Thereafter, he was charge sheeted under Rule 7 of HCS (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1987. The Inquiry Officer had submitted his report on 05.06.2003 and after considering this report, the petiitoner was dismissed from service vide order dated 09.09.2003. The petitioner preferred appeal which was rejected on 09.02.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner filed memorial nearly after 02 years and 03 months which was accepted by the Hon'ble Governor of Haryana and the orders were conveyed by the Government vide Endst Dated 4/7.07.2014. In compliance of this order, the petitioner was taken back in service vide order dated 01.08.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted from the post of Clerk to the post of Accountant vide order dated 28.10.2016 (R-1) and his salary was refixed vide order dated 30.12.2016 (R-2). The pay of the petitioner has also been refixed as per 7 th pay commission report w.e.f 01.01.2016 vide order dated 07.02.2017 (R-3).

3. At the very outset, learrned counsel for the petitioner refers to the order dated 04.07.2014 (P-7). The operative part of the order reads as under:-

"It appears that it was all done with malafides intention to harass aznd harm the memorialist. It seems to be a case of sheer intimdation against a subordinate employee by senior officer. Morever, thge appeallate authority has taken 07 years to decide his case. Apparently, someone in an influential position in the department has manipulated the things against the memorialist for reasons best known to them. But this is a serious matter which calls for thorough probe by the Administrative Department. Therefore, there does not seem to be any justification in the punishment of dismissal on the charge of willful absence of duty for two days."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the Hon'ble Governor of Haryana was satisfied that it was a case of malafide intention to harass and harm the petitioner, thereafter, the respondent ought to have release the salary of the petititioner for the period w.e.f 07.04.2001 to 07.04.2014. The petitioner had been deliberately kept away from service from performing his duty. The principle of No Work No Pay could not be invoked in such circumstances.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is relying upon judgment of this Court in a case of Dr. D.C. Spah vs. State of Haryana and another,2012 LIC 4241 wherein also the petitioner was found absent from duty. The operative part of the judgment reads as under:-

"Petitioner has contended that the impugned order dated 5.10.2010 of the Higher Education Commissioner, Haryana-respondent No.2 wherein the period of his absence from 1.9.2007 to 20.3.2009 has been treated as 'No Work No Pay' with break in service has been passed without following the principles of natural justice, as no show cause notice has been issued to him nor any enquiry has been held against him. This fact has not been disputed by the respondents in their reply filed. It cannot be disputed that the impugned order carries with it civil consequences which will adversely affect the right of the petitioner as with the break in service, the period of service rendered by the petitioner from the date of his initially joining the service on 7.1