'No Work No Pay' Not Applicable When Law Expressly Provides For Grant Of Fully Pay On Exoneration: Chhattisgarh High Court

Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal remarked that the principle of 'No Work No Pay' would not override sub-rule (2) of Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules, which provides for full pay and allowances on full exoneration.

Background:

The petitioner, a Jail Gaurd, was terminated from service by the competent authority. He preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which was allowed, and he was then reinstated in service.

However, the full pay and allowances from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement was not granted by the appellate authority.

This part of order, of not granting full pay and allowances, was called in question by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. 

Senior Advocate H.B. Agarwal, appearing for the petitioner, argued that full pay and allowances from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement ought to have been granted to the petitioner in the light of Rule 54 (2) of the Fundamental Rules. 

On the other hand, Additional Advocate General Sunil Otwani, appearing for the respondent-State, submitted that the appellate authority had considered the facts and circumstances of the case and rightly held that the petitioner was not entitled to full pay and allowances on the principle of 'No Work No Pay.

Findings:

The Court noted that Rule 54(2) of the Fundamental Rules entitles the Government servant for full pay and allowances in case of full exoneration.

It was noted that the principle of 'No Work No Pay' was based upon a fundamental concept in a Law of Contact of Employment, where wages and salary were paid by the employer in consideration of work/service rendered by the employee. Thus Court added that,

Referring to the judgement of the Apex Court in the State of Bihar and Ors. v. Kripa Nand Singh & Anr. where it was observed that 'No Work No Pay' is the rule and 'No Work Yet Pay' is the exception, the Court stated that the exception would apply only when an employee was compelled (compulsory waiting period) not to attend his duty without any violation or any fault on his part.

Further reliance was placed on Commissioner Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah, where the Supreme Court reiterated that the principle of 'No Work No Pay' was not absolute in a given case, if the person was willing to work but was illegally and unlawfully not allowed to do so; the Court may, in the circumstances, direct the authority to grant him all benefits considering "as if he had worked".

After examining the precedents, the Court noted that the principle of 'No Work No Pay' would not be applicable where the rule expressly directed so otherwise, like in the case  sub-rule (2) of Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules in the instant case. 

Accordingly, the part of impugned order of 2010 holding the petitioner to be not entitled for full pay and allowances from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement was set­ aside. The Court thus remitted the matter back to the appellate authority to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of full pay and allowances.

Case Title: Rajendra Sharma & Ors v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order