'No Work-No Pay' Principle Not Applicable To UP Govt Employees Reinstated After Full Exoneration: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that an employee who has been fully exonerated of the charges against him and has been subsequently reinstated is entitled to full pay for the period he was out of service by virtue of Rule 54 of the Financial Hand Book Volume-II (Part II to IV).

Rule 54 of the Financial Hand Book Volume-II (Part II to IV) provides that a dismissed employee who has been fully exonerated from all charges is entitled to full pay for the period of dismissal once he is reinstated. It further provides that such period of dismissal shall be treated as period in service, on duty.

“A reading of Rules 54(2) and 54(4) shows that, in Uttar Pradesh, the principle 'no work-no pay' is not applicable while considering the entitlement of State Government employees for pay and allowances for the period they were not in service if the order dismissing, removing or compulsory retiring them from service is set aside either in appeal or review and the government servant is reinstated in service and no further inquiry is proposed to be held.”

The bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai held,

“It is apparent that, on his reinstatement after the order of dismissal or removal is set aside, a government servant can not be denied his entire pay and allowances for the period he was out of service.”

The Court held that quantum of amount which is payable to such employee will depend upon the nature of exoneration from the charges. It was held that the only situation in which a pay to such employee can be denied is if he was in an employment for the period he was out of service, and was earning more or equivalent to the amount he is entitled to.

Factual Background

Petitioner is a Follower with the Uttar Pradesh Police. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991 where chargesheet was issued against him alleging unauthorized leave of 2 days, hunger strike affecting the reputation of police force.

In inquiry, petitioner was held guilty of all charges levelled against him. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, and subsequently he was dismissed from service. Petitioner filed an appeal against the termination order. Appellate Authority exonerated the petitioner of charges levelled against and he was consequently reinstated in service.

Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Rule 73 of the Financial Handbook Volume-II Part II to IV as to why his services for the period the petitioner was out of service i.e., between 9.1.2020 to 29.9.2020, be not regularized without payment of salary on the principle of 'no work no pay'. The said period was the period between his termination and the order of the appellate authority.

The Superintendent of Police, District Deoria directed that the petitioner will not be paid his salary for the period during which he was out of service because of the dismissal order, i.e., for the period between 9.1.2020 to 29.9.2020. other than applying the 'no work no pay' principle, it was alleged that the petitioner was grossly negligent towards his duties.

Petitioner challenged the order of the aforesaid Superintendent of Police, District Deoria.

High Court Verdict

The Court observed that at no point petitioner was placed under suspension and had been fully exonerated of all charged by the appellate authority on 04.09.2020. it was further observed that the matter was not remanded back to the disciplinary authority for further consideration.

The Court observed that the order of the Superintendent of Police, District Deoria stopping petitioner's pay for the period when he was dismissed from service was wrong as the conduct of the petitioner which were a subject matter of the disciplinary proceedings could not have been made basis for stopping his pay.

Rule 73 of the Financial Hand Book Volume-II Part II to IV provides that a Government servant who remains absent after the end of his leave is entitled to no leave salary for the period of such absence. Such willful absence from duty shall be treated as misbehavior.

“Rule 73 is invoked where the government servant is absent after the end of his leave, i.e., the government servant overstays his leave. The petitioner was not on leave between 9.1.2020 to 29.9.2020 but stood dismissed for the said period because of the dismissal order passed against him by the disciplinary authority. Thus Rule 73 was not applicable in the present case,” held the Court.

The Court held that the respondents had nowhere pleaded that the inquiry or the appellate proceedings had been delayed due to the petitioner or that he was gainfully employed during the period he was out of service. Accordingly, the period the petitioner was out of service is deemed to be treated as period served on duty which entitles him for wages during the said period.

While allowing the writ petition, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to a cost of Rs. 25,000 for the litigation.

Case Title: Dinesh Prasad v. State Of Up And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 5033 of 2024]

Click Here To Read/Download Order