2025:JHHC:19301 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 4041 of 2024 ---------- Satyendra Kumar, aged about 71 years, son of Late Kesho Prasad, resident of Village- Andi, Ward No.14, Block-Asthawan, Subdivision- Biharsharif, P.O. & P.S. Andi, District- Nalanda, (Bihar) at present residing at New Nalanda Colony, Budh Vihar, P.O.- RIMS, Bariatu, P.S.- Bariatu, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand). …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co-operative Department (Cooperative Section), Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, District- Ranchi. 3. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O.& P.S. Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Registrar, Co-operative Society, Jharkhand Ranchi, having office at Pashupalan Bhawan, Hesag, P.O.- Hatia, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand). 5. The Under Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co- operative Department (Cooperative Section), Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, District- Ranchi. 6. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Ranchi Circle, Ranchi, having office at Pashupalan Bhawan, Hesag, P.O.- Hatia, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand). ……. ….. Respondents ---------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Deepak Kr. Dubey, Ruhi Dubey, Rashi Sharma, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Suresh Kumar, SC(L&C) Mr. Anshuman Kumar, AC to SC(L&C) ---------- 04/ 08.07.2025 By way of the instant writ application the petitioner pray has prayed for the following relief (s):- (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/order (s)/direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the Memo no. 2779 (2) dated 02.08.2019 (Annexure-25) issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Society, Jharkhand Ranchi by which period from 30.10.2009 to 28.11.2010 declared as unauthorized absent and the said period has been treated as No 2025:JHHC:19301 2 Work No Pay, and this order has been passed in suppression of letter no. 144 dated 10.10.2007. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to regularize the period from 30.10.2009 to 28.11.2010 as wrongly declared as Extra-ordinary leave due to fault of the respondents, because petitioner has retired on 31.12.2013 and order to be regularized the said period as Extra-ordinary leave has been passed on 02.08.2019 i.e. after 5 years 7 months of the retirement of the petitioner and for this no application has ever been filed by the petitioner. If these periods i.e from 30.10.2009 to 28.11.2010 would be decided as per letter no. 144 dated 10.10.2007 and also during his service period, then said period cannot be considered as Extra- ordinary leave rather it could have been adjusted from other admissible leave as prescribed in Service Code. (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter no. 1006 dated 03.05.2011 (Annexure-15) whereby and whereunder prior to initiation of the Departmental Proceeding respondent authority has taken decision on the basis of no work no pay theory even without following the principle of Natural Justice and also in violation of letter no. 144 dated 10.10.2007 and further prays that letter no. 144 dated 10.10.2007 must be treat in full sense not as per the wish of the respondent authorities. (iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to grant arrear of salary from 30.10.2009 to 28.11.2010 with statutory interest as because respondent authorities have intentionally not released the salary of the said period in suppression of letter no. 144 dated 10.10.2007 which says that post holder of Maha Sangh/ Dist. Maha Sangh cannot be transfer at any place during his tenure if any order of transfer has been issued during his tenure then his transfer order must be stopped/recalled and payment of the said period must be paid to the employee/post holder/ transferee in the light of letter no. 988 dated 11.05.1992 and this letter has been followed by the State of Jharkhand vide letter no. 144 dated 10.10.2007 till date. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ application is one and the same which was raised by his co-employee namely, Subhash Chandra Singh in W.P.(S) No. 206 of 2023; wherein the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the impugned order. He further submits that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court 2025:JHHC:19301 3 has held that when the enquiry officer has held the transfer of the petitioner to be against the circular of the respondents then the impugned order of unauthorized absence cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 3. In the instant case also; the punishment has been imposed by the disciplinary authority on the ground of unauthorized absence whereas the enquiry officer has held in its report that the transfer of the petitioner was against the circular; as such the impugned order may be quashed as the order passed in the case of “Subhash Chandra Singh (supra)” and “Ratan Prasad W.P.(S). No. 7252 of 2023” are squarely applicable in this case. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents does not have any objection. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and looking to the prayer made in the instant writ application and also the order passed by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court it appears that this Court has categorically held that when there is specific finding in the enquiry report that the transfer of the petitioner was against the circulars of the respondents; then the finding recorded in the impugned order of unauthorized absence on account of transfer cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 6. The Court has further observed that in the impugned order the respondents have applied the principle of “no work no pay” by referring the letter issued by the State Government as contained in letter dated 03.05.2011; whereby the respondents had pre-determined that the petitioner will not be paid salary for the intervening period although there was a clear provision of not transferring the elected office member/office bearer and as such respondents have acted against the circulars applicable to the petitioner. For brevity, relevant para nos. 17 and 18 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted herein below: “17. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was transferred while the petitioner was an elected office bearer. It further appears that the petitioner had participated in the disciplinary proceedings arising out of indiscipline of not joining the transferred post and ultimately it was found that the transfer order of the petitioner was in violation of the circulars issued by the State Government / respondent department. It was held that the suspension of the petitioner was to be invoked and the departmental proceeding was to be terminated and in terms of letter No. 1006 dated 03.05.2011 and the petitioner was required to be posted at Ranchi. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2021 and the impugned order dated 25.02.2021 was passed by holding the petitioner guilty of unauthorized absence and the intervening period from 22.10.2009 to 25.02.2011 was directed to be treated as extra-ordinary leave on the principle of 'no work no pay'. 2025:JHHC:19301 4 18. This Court is of the considered view that there was specific finding in the enquiry report that the transfer of the petitioner was against the circulars of the respondents and accordingly the findings recorded in the impugned order of unauthorized absence on account of transfer cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In the impugned order the respondents have applied the principles of 'no work no pay' by referring to the letter issued by the State Government as contain in letter No. 1006 dated 03.05.2011 whereby the respondents had predetermined that the petitioner will not be paid salary for the intervening period although there was a clear provision of not transferring the elected office member/ office bearers and respondents had acted contrary to their own circular.” 7. Having regard to the facts of this case and the impugned order and also the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on similar issue, rendered in the case “Subhash Chandra Singh (supra)”, the Memo No. 2779(2) dated 02.08.2019 and Letter No. 1006 dated 03.05.2011 deserves to be, and is, hereby quashed and set aside and the concerned Respondent is directed to determine all consequential benefits which shall arise including the arrears of salary etc. from 30.10.2009 to 28.11.2010 and the same shall be paid to the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed (Deepak Roshan, J.) kunal/-