JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.

Prayer

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of letter/order dated 01.09.2025 (Annexure P-7) vide which respondent No.3 has denied honorarium/salary to the petitioner for the period from 01.01.2023 to 15.10.2024. Further to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus for directing the respondents to give honorarium/salary and other facilities like free Sim to the petitioner for the period from 01.01.2023 to 15.10.2024 during which petitioner was illegally and unlawfully removed from the post of Asha Worker by the respondents on 31.12.2022 without passing any order and giving opportunity of being heard and travelling beyond the principle of natural justice.

Brief Facts

2. In June 2009, the respondents issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of ASHA Worker. The petitioner, being a literate woman with qualification up to 5th class, applied and was duly selected following the prescribed procedure. She joined as an ASHA Worker on 01.07.2009 and was posted at CHC Sorkhi, later working at PHC Bass, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar. From the date of appointment, the petitioner discharged her duties sincerely and efficiently, and no adverse material was ever recorded against her.

3. On 14.12.2022, the Senior Medical Officer, CHC Sorkhi issued a letter to the petitioner stating that as per departmental records, her retirement was due on 31.12.2022 and called upon her to submit objections, if any. The petitioner immediately represented that the date of birth recorded in her Aadhaar Card was incorrect and that the school records were old and partially destroyed. She alleged that her correct age, as reflected in her PAN Card and Voter ID, was about 54–55 years.

4. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed CWP No. 2640 of 2023. By order dated 20.08.2024, this Court allowed the writ petition, directed that the petitioner should not be retired before attaining the age of 60 years, and ordered her reinstatement as ASHA Worker. In compliance, the respondents rejoined the petitioner on 16.10.2024. However, the respondents did not release her honorarium/salary and allied benefits for the period during which she remained out of service from 01.01.2023 to 15.10.2024.

Contentions

On behalf of the petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner made repeated oral and written representations seeking release of her honorarium for the aforesaid period, contending that she was kept out of service involuntarily and was always willing to work. He further argued that the petitioner issued a legal notice and vide letter/order dated 01.09.2025, the claim of the petitioner stands, rejected by the respondent/department by applying the principle of “No Work No Pay” on the ground that she had not worked during the relevant period, relying upon an order of the Mission Director (NHM) dated 16.05.2025.

6. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Shobha Ram Raturi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, 2016 (16) SCC 663 to contend that the rule of “No Work No Pay” is inapplicable where an employee is prevented from working by the employer. It is urged that the impugned order dated 01.09.2025 violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice, and has resulted in grave injustice and financial hardship to the petitioner.

Analysis

7. This Court has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, including reliance on the judgment rendered in Shobha Ram Raturi’s case (supra), to contend that the principle of “No Work No Pay” is inapplicable where an employee is prevented from working by the employer. It is, however, pertinent to note that in the cited case, the principle was considered in contexts where the employee’s age, tenure, and right to continue in service were not in dispute, and where there was no ques