Sr. No. 27 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP (C) No. 1030/2025 UT of J&K and another …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA V/s Mohan Singh …..Respondent(s) Through:- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE ORDER 29.04.2025 01. Petitioners have challenged the order dated 30.08.2024, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu in OA No. 61/90/2022, titled “Mohan Singh v. Department of Fisheries and another”. 02. The applicant/respondent herein had filed an Original Application seeking release of the salary due to him since 2007, which was withheld by the respondents/petitioners herein, without any plausible reason. 03. The prayer of the applicant/respondent herein was opposed by the petitioners on the ground that the respondent remained unauthorisedly absent from duty and failed to explain his absence, thus, cannot be paid salary on the principle of no work no pay. 04. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal despite accepting the version of the petitioners that the respondent remained unauthorisedly absent and was eventually struck off from the acquaintance roll of the Department, has erroneously directed the release of salary without any basis and without considering their objections to the same. 05. The petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar and subsequently promoted as Field Supervisor remained absent from duties w.e.f. 05.10.2009 to 30.11.2009 and from 10.12.2009 to 30.06.2010. He reported back for duties on 01.07..2010 and again remained unauthorisedly absent from 21.12.2010 and did not report back for duties and thereafter, was struck off from the acquaintance roll w.e.f. August 2014. The Original Application filed by the respondent was disposed of with the following direction: - “Keeping in view the aforernentioned facts and circumstances case of the case, the present Original Application is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to release the due and admissible salary of the applicant, intermittent period for which he has worked from September, 2009 to August, 2014. But he cannot be given any benefit for the mistake committed by the Department by showing his name in the seniority list issued on 29.04.2023.” 06. Perusal of the order dated 30.08.2024 reveals that the OA has only been disposed of with the direction to the respondents to release the due and admissible salary of the applicant for the intermittent period for which the applicant has worked i.e. from September 2009 to August 2014. 07. As per the averments made by the petitioners in their objections to the OA, it was submitted that the respondent had remained absent from duties w.e.f. 05.10.2009 to 30.11.2009 and from 10.12.2009 to 30.06.2010 and rejoined duty on 01.07.2010 to 21.12.2010. The Tribunal after considering these facts in para 14 of its order has directed the petitioners to release the due and admissible salary of the respondent for the intermittent period for he has worked from September 2009 to August 2014 i.e. only for a period respondent has worked and which was due to him was to be released. The petitioners, thus, are directed to release the salary which is due and admissible in accordance with rules, only for the intermittent period i.e. for the short spell he has actually worked from September 2009 to August 2014. 08. In view of the above, the order of the Tribunal is well-reasoned and does not warrant any interference. This writ petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. (Rajesh Sekhri) (Sindhu Sharma) Judge Judge Jammu: 29.04.2025 Vishal Khajuria