Back
2024 Supreme(MP) 716
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Subodh Abhyankar, J.
Satyanarayan Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
Director General Central Reserve Police Force And Ors. And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 13642 of 2013
Decided On : 09-12-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shri Sumeet Samvatsar, learned counsel
For the Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel
The principle of 'No Work No Pay' applies, denying back wages for periods of unauthorized absence despite reinstate post-conviction.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Sections 3 and 12 - Denial of back wages and qualifying service - Petitioner denied back wages from 16/12/1993 to 28/10/2012 based on 'No Work No Pay' principle after conviction and dismissal - Court ruled that disqualification was removed due to the Probation Act, but back wages denial upheld as the petitioner did not work during that period. (Paras 10, 11)
(B) Legal Principle - The principle of 'No Work No Pay' applies when an employee does not work during the period of absence, affecting entitlement to wages. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner, initially dismissed from service, obtained reinstatement after conviction was set aside, sought recognition of prior service and back wages for the period of absence due to dismissal.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner not entitled to back wages for the period he did not work but was entitled to terminal benefits for that period.
Issues: Whether back wages can be awarded despite the 'No Work No Pay' policy for the intervening absence period and implications of the Probation of Offenders Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that despite the benefit of the Probation Act, the petitioner could not claim back wages without work, distinguishing his circumstances from similar cases.
Result: Petition partly allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's absence and prior conviction impact service benefits. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the legality of the petitioner's dismissal. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis of service benefits under the probation of offenders act. (Para 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 4. distinction made between this case and precedents set in prior judgments. (Para 12 , 13) |
ORDER :
Subodh Abhyankar, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
“It is, therefore, prayed that the petition be allowed with cost and an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued for quashing that part of the impugned order dated 08/02/2013 (Annexure P/6) by which the respondents had denied the back wages to the petitioner w.e.f. 16/12/1993 to 28/10/2012 and has further directed that this period shall not be counted as qualifying service for any purpose. That the respondents be further directed to pay back wages to the petitioner e.w.f. 16/12/1993 and this period be counted towards the payment of pension etc.
Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.”
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 08/02/2013, whereby the respondent No.4 Commandant, 1st Battalion, CRPF has regularized the period of service of the petitioner from 06/12/1993 to 20/10/2012 on the principle of “No Work No Pay” and has directed that this period shall not be counted as qualifying for any purposes.
3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was posted as Constable in the CRPF in the year 1975 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Lance-naik. The case of the petitioner is that on 19/08/1993, he took a leave from 19/08/1993 to 23/08/1993, but did not report on duty, hence, on 08/10/1993, an arrest warrant was issued against him and he was also prosecuted for his unauthorized absence, in which, he was convicted on 04/11/1993, under Section 10 (N) of C.R.P.F. Act, 1955 and was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court, and consequently, he was dismissed from service on 01/12/1993. Against the order of conviction, the petitioner also preferred Criminal Appeal No.114/2007 before the Sessions Court, Neemuch, who vide its order dated 28/05/2010, set aside the order of conviction by extending the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders’ Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1958’) to the petitioner. The aforesaid order was also challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Criminal Revision No.1119/2010, however, the same was dismissed on 05/05/2011. Thereafter, an application was also filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for modification of the order dated 05/05/2011 and the same was modified by extending the benefit of the Act of 1958 to the petitioner.
4. Pursuant to the order dated 05/05/2011, on 26/09/2011, the petitioner also filed an appeal before the respondents for his reinstatement in service along with all consequential benefits, and on 04/10/2012, the respondent No.3 Deputy Inspector Genera, C.R.P.F., Neemuch passed the order reinstating the petitioner in service w.e.f. 29/10/2012. After the aforesaid order of reinstatement, another order dated 08/02/2013 was passed by respondent No.4 regularizing the service of the petitioner, however, with a condition that on the principle of “No Work No Pay”, the period from 16/12/1993 to 20/08/2012 shall not be counted as qualifying service for any other purposes as the Court verdict has only partially allow revision petition keeping the conviction of the petitioner intact. Being aggrieved, the present petition has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders’ Act, 1958 which provides for removal of disqualification attaching to conviction, and has submitted that throughout the period, even after his conviction, the petitioner was available to serve the respon
