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.

JUDGMENT :

This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.43517 of 2016, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘writ petitioner’) was allowed and the appellant-Municipality was directed to pay all retirement benefits along with salary from 28.04.2006 till the date of superannuation, with interest at 12% per annum.

2. Heard Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.Rama Subba Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

Factual background (in brief)

3. The writ petitioner was appointed as a Public Health Worker (originally appointed as Scavenger) in the Adilabad Municipality on 01.08.1977. It is the case of the appellant- Municipality that the writ petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from duty with effect from 29.07.2004. In that regard, a charge memo dated 28.04.2006 was issued initiating disciplinary proceedings. Though the writ petitioner was permitted to rejoin duty on humanitarian grounds on 26.05.2006, pending conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, the writ petitioner failed to report for duty. It is noted that a second charge Memo was issued on 10.11.2016, which is of significance. The disciplinary proceedings, however, remained inconclusive for several years.

4. In the year 2016, after the issuance of the second charge Memo, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing the underlying writ petition seeking payment of retirement benefits and salary for the period during which he remained absent from duty.

5. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, held that inasmuch as the writ petitioner was not suspended and was permitted to resume duties, the writ petitioner must be deemed to have continued in service till the date of superannuation and was, therefore, entitled to full salary for the said period as well as retiral benefits.

6. The appellant-Municipality, in this writ appeal, has raised several grounds and contended as hereunder:

(i) That the writ petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from 29.07.2004 to 31.07.2017 without sanctioned leave, which amounts to voluntary abandonment of service. Reliance was placed on Vijay S.Sathaye v. Indian Airlines Limited, (2013) 10 SCC 253 wherein prolonged unauthorised absence was held to result in automatic severance of the employer–employee relationship.

(ii) That the doctrine of “no work, no pay”, as reiterated in Sukhdeo Pandey v. Union of India, (2007) 7 SCC 455 applies squarely, disentitling the petitioner from salary or monetary benefits for the period which he admittedly did not render service.

(iii) That the writ petition was premature and not maintainable, having been filed in 2016, prior to the petitioner’s superannuation on 31.07.2017, when no enforceable right to retirement benefits (cause of action) had accrued.

(iv) That the claims for arrears of salary must be restricted only to three years preceding the filing of the writ petition in the absence of exceptional circumstances; hence, the direction of the learned Single Judge to pay salary from 2006 is legally unsustainable.

(v) That the award of interest at 12% per annum was arbitrary and excessive, lacking any statutory or contractual basis, particularly in a matter involving disputed service matter.

(vi) That the learned Single Judge failed to consider G.O.Ms.No.129 dated 01.06.2007, which introduced Rule 5-B into the Andhra Pradesh Leave Rules, 1933, whereby a government servant is deemed to have resigned if absent without authorisation for over one year subject to reasonable op