Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J
K C Jain – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Department of Law, State Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj) – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
Order
09/02/2026
1. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"(i) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 18.6.2014 in part whereby salary and wages for the period between 14.6.2006 and 31.7.2010 have been denied and further direct the respondents to make the payment of wages of the aforesaid period with interest @ 18% p.a.
(ii) any other writ/order/direction which this court deems fit & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.
(iii) award cost of the petition."
2. The petitioner challenged his compulsory retirement order before the departmental appellate authority, and vide order dated 18.08.2014, the appellate aut
Compulsory retirement without cogent grounds prohibits wage denial for the intervening period.
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 'no work, no pay' principle should be applied in service jurisprudence, and retrospective punishment orders are not in accordance with the law.
Disciplinary actions must adhere to procedural safeguards; arbitrary penalties without necessary inquiries infringe upon employee rights.
Compulsory retirement is not a punishment and serves public interest by weeding out ineffective employees, validated by a consistent record of penalties.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in compulsory retirement cases, ruling that arbitrary actions without substantial evidence are impermissible.
An employee unlawfully dismissed is generally entitled to back wages unless the employer proves gainful employment during the relevant period.
Court affirmed that compulsory retirement must follow procedural guidelines, with emphasis on subjective satisfaction of authorities based on the entire service record, highlighting narrow scope for ....
The assessment of an employee's entire service record is crucial for deciding on compulsory retirement, and the order must be based on proper grounds and subjective satisfaction of the authority.
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
Listen Article