Principle Of “No Work No Pay” Not Applicable To Reinstated Govt. Employees For The Period They Were Out Of Service: Allahabad HC

The Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai observed, “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… 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 amount which the government servant would be entitled to get would depend on whether the case of the government servant is covered by Rule 54(2) or by Rule 54 (4).”

Advocate Shyam Lal appeared for the Petitioner whereas Standing Counsel appeared for the Respondents.

The Petitioner was employed as a Follower with the U.P 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 ('Rules, 1991') and a charge sheet was served on him. The charge against the petitioner was that the petitioner, without informing his Officers and without any leave, was absented from duty and that after joining the petitioner went on a hunger strike and refused to resume his mess duty which adversely affected the reputation of the police force. Consequently, he was dismissed from the services.

His appeal was allowed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur and he was reinstated in the services but the Superintendent of Police had directed that the petitioner shall not be paid his salary for the period during which he was out of service because of the dismissal order. The order has been passed on the principle of ‘no work no pay’.

The Court held, “Where the government servant is not exonerated of the charges but is still reinstated in service or the order dismissing or removing a government servant is set aside in appeal or review solely on the ground of non-compliance with the requirements of Article 311(1) and (2) of the Constitution and no further enquiry is proposed to be held, the government servant shall not be entitled to full pay and allowances but will be entitled to be paid such amount (not being the whole) of the pay and allowances as the competent authority may decide after giving the employee notice of the quantum proposed and after considering his representation but it shall not be less than the subsistence allowance and other allowances admissible under Rule 53.”

The Court further said that it was not the case of the Respondents that the Petitioner was earning through any employment elsewhere for the period he was out of service. Thus, the Court said that by Rules 54(2) and 54(3), the Petitioner was entitled to full pay and allowances for the period and his absence from service during the said period has to be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the order passed by the Superintendent of Police.

The Court also directed the Superintendent of Police to pay the petitioner his full pay and allowances for the said period along with simple interest calculated at the rate of 6% per annum and also the cost of the writ petition.

Cause Title: Dinesh Prasad v. State of U.P. and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:113149)

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate Shyam Lal

Respondents: CSC

Click here to read/download the Order