'No Work No Pay' Principle Not Applicable When Employee Is Kept Away From Work By Employer: Gauhati High Court - 2025-09-15

Tracking Legal Developments.

‘No Work, No Pay’ Inapplicable When Employer Prevents Work, Orders Gauhati HC, Awards Teacher 42 Months Back Wages

Guwahati: In a significant ruling on service law, the Gauhati High Court has held that the principle of ‘no work, no pay’ cannot be mechanically applied when an employee is kept away from work by the actions or omissions of the employer. The court, presided over by Justice Robin Phukan, quashed a 2014 order that had denied a retired teacher his salary for a disputed period and directed the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) to release 42 months of back wages with interest.

The bench underscored that denying salary is unjust when the employee was willing to work but was prevented from doing so by the authorities.

A Teacher's Decade-Long Battle

The case was brought by Devi Prasad Ghimire, a retired Assistant Teacher who endured a protracted battle for his dues. His ordeal began with a dispute with the Headmaster of Siddheswar M.E. School, leading to his first suspension in 2008. Although reinstated in March 2010, Ghimire alleged the Headmaster continued to harass him, preventing him from signing the attendance register and filing false reports of his absence.

This led to a second suspension in February 2012, which the court later found contained an "illegal and arbitrary" condition: Ghimire was required to remain in school for the entire day and sign the attendance register during his suspension to receive subsistence allowance. He was finally reinstated and transferred to another school in September 2013.

The core of the present dispute was an order dated December 26, 2014, issued by the Director of Education, BTC. This order, which Ghimire claimed he only discovered in 2020, rejected his claim for arrear salary from March 2012 to September 2013, citing the principle of ‘no work, no pay’ based on his alleged absence.

Arguments Before the Court

Petitioner's Counsel, Mr. B. Chetri , argued that Ghimire was a victim of a conspiracy and was unjustly harassed. He contended that the petitioner was always willing to work but was unlawfully prevented from doing so. He further asserted that since no departmental proceedings were ever initiated against Ghimire following his suspensions, he was entitled to full back wages upon reinstatement, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Raj Narain vs. Union of India .

Counsel for the BTC, Mr. S. Bora , vehemently opposed the petition, arguing it was filed after an inordinate delay. He claimed Ghimire had suppressed the fact of the 2014 rejection order and was therefore not entitled to any equitable relief. The core of the BTC's defense rested on the ‘no work, no pay’ principle, stating Ghimire was absent from duty and thus ineligible for salary for that period.

Court's Rationale and Legal Principles

Justice Robin Phukan dismantled the respondents' arguments, focusing on the applicability of the ‘no work, no pay’ rule and the legality of the suspension conditions.

"The legal proposition, that can be crystallized... is that the principle ‘No work, no pay’ is applicable only when an employee is absent due to his own act or omission/fault. But, when the employee is kept away from the work by an act or omission on the part of the employer, the employee cannot be denied salary on the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’."

The court noted that the petitioner's specific allegation—that the Headmaster prevented him from signing the attendance register—was never rebutted by the respondents in their affidavit. This led the court to conclude that Ghimire was not at fault for his absence.

Furthermore, the court deemed the condition in the 2012 suspension order—requiring daily attendance to receive subsistence allowance—as "illegal and arbitrary." Citing precedent, the court held that if the condition itself was illegal, then denying salary based on its non-fulfillment was also illegal.

On the issue of delay, the court sided with the petitioner, accepting his explanation that he was unaware of the 2014 order until 2020. Citing the Supreme Court in Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh , the court held that delay cannot be a barrier in cases involving a "continuing cause of action," especially when fundamental rights are breached. The judgment emphasized that the right to salary is a constitutional and human right.

Final Verdict and Directions

Finding sufficient merit in the petition, the Gauhati High Court allowed it, setting aside and quashing the impugned order of December 26, 2014.

The court directed the BTC authorities to:

- Release the arrear salary for the full 42-month period from March 23, 2010, to September 9, 2013.

- Include all entitlements such as Revised Scale Pay and Senior Grade Pay after proper verification.

- Complete this exercise within three months.

- Pay interest at a rate of 6% per annum on the dues from the date they accrued until the date of payment.