‘No Work No Pay’ Principle Not Applicable: Allahabad HC Orders Payment Of Salary For Suspension Period To Employee Suspended Without Inquiry Due To Detention In Criminal Case
The Allahabad High Court observed that denying salary to the employee who was suspended for detention in jail in a criminal case, subsequently, revoked immediately upon his acquittal is unjustifiable as the principle of ‘no work no pay’ cannot be applied. The Court took into account the fact that departmental inquiry was not initiated against the employee after suspension.
The Petitioner, who is working as a Routine Grade Clerk in a government college, was aggrieved by the order whereby his claim for regular payment of salary for the period he remained under suspension on account of involvement in a criminal case was rejected.
The Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar directed, “I find petitioner's case to be on a much better footing as he was only suspended for detention in jail without there being any inquiry in contemplation and his suspension was revoked immediately upon his acquittal in the criminal case and no appeal was preferred against the judgment of acquittal…In view of the above, therefore, the Court is of the considered view that respondents are not justified in denying salary to the petitioner applying the principle of 'no work no pay'.”
Advocate Vimal Chandra Mishra appeared for the Petitioner and Chief Standing Counsel appeared for the Respondents.
The Court relied on the view taken up by the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Narain v. Union of India and Ors. (2019) in which an identical issue was dealt with. In the said case even though departmental inquiry was set up it was later on dropped and upon acquittal, the employee was reinstated revoking his suspension order.
The Court held, “The principle of 'no work no pay' could have been attracted if petitioner had enjoyed bail in criminal case and had been merely kept under suspension but this is not the case either. Petitioner remained in detention until he was acquitted. There was no question of petitioner giving any certificate that he was not gainfully employed anywhere during the period he was under suspension. One must draw difference between an under-trial on bail and convicted person in jail.”
In the present matter, the Petitioner contended that since the Respondents did not proceed to hold disciplinary inquiry by holding departmental proceedings against the Petitioner and he was simply placed under suspension on account of his detention in jail, upon his reinstatement with the revocation of suspension order, petitioner became entitled to salary for the period he remained under suspension.
Per contra, the Respondents said that even though the petitioner has been acquitted but every acquittal is not an honourable acquittal to make him entitled to the payment of salary for the period he had remained under a lawful detention.
The Court said, “There is nothing in the counter affidavit to demonstrate that even otherwise the conduct of the petitioner has not been good and fair while discharging his official duties. The averments raised in the counter affidavit are quite sketchy as they only refer to the criminal case and detention of petitioner in jail.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and directed Respondents to make payment of arrears of salary to the Petitioner.
Cause Title: Anil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024: AHC:45375)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Vimal Chandra Mishra
Respondents: Chief Standing Counsel
