Back
VIVEK CHAUDHARY
Ratan Srivastava – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 23.01.2015 and Government Order dated 08.07.1987.
3. After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is confining his prayer only to the extent of interpretation of order dated 23.01.2015.
4. The facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Tehvildar (Collection Amin) in the year 1988 in the treasury department of district Varanasi. In the year 1991, district Chandauli was carved out of the district Varanasi and petitioner was placed in the new district Chandauli. Thereafter, seniority of the petitioner was not fixed and ultimately in the year 1999 he was sent from treasury department to revenue department. Petitioner was shown as absent from 01.07.2008 to 15.08.2012. He challenged the same before the Court and a direction was issued to decide the representation of the petitioner. Now, by the impugned order, his representation is decided. The impugned order states that petitioner was absent from 01.07.2008 to 15.08.2012 and on the basis of principle
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.
The 'no work, no pay' principle should be applied in service jurisprudence, and retrospective punishment orders are not in accordance with the law.
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.
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.
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
