1 2025:CGHC:2116 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1669 of 2018 1 - Ramsagar Sinha S/o S/o Late Shiv Lal Sinha Aged About 58 Years Working As- Constable (G. D.) (Batch No. 821). O/o The Commandant, 2nd Battalion, Chhattisgarh, Armed Force, Sankri Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home And Police Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police, State Of Chhattisgarh, P. H. Q. Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Inspector General Of Police, Chhattisgarh, Armed Force-2, Police Head Quarter, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Commandant, 2nd Battalion, Chhattisgarh. Armed Force, Sankri, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Shri H. R. Manhar, The Commandant, 2nd Battalion, Chhattisgarh, Armed Force, Sankri, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents _________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, P.L. _________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13.01.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “a. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction to the respondents authorities for quashing the impugned order, dt. 6/8/2017 Annexure - P/1 passed by the respondent no. 4. Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 b. May kindly be pleased to grant consequential benefits of pay, salary and arrears to the petitioner for the termination period from 30/09/2002 up to 7/7/2013. c. May kindly be pleased to allow any other relief as the Hon'ble Court may be deemed fit and proper.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner was posted and working as a Constable in the 2nd Battalion, Special Armed Force (BSF), Bilaspur. A departmental enquiry was instituted against him by issuing a charge-sheet on 29.5.2001. The enquiry report was submitted on 10.8.2001 and the petitioner was inflicted with the penalty of withholding increment for one year vide order dated 31.8.2001. He would further submit that the Revisional Authority/The Commandant, Bilaspur exercising powers under Regulation 270 of the C.G./M.P. Police Regulations, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 17.5.2002. The petitioner filed a reply on 20.7.2002 and thereafter, the penalty was enhanced to dismissal from service vide order dated 30.9.2002. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2002. He would also submit that the order dated 30.9.2002 was challenged by filing W.P. No.2729 of 2022, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities, whereby the matter was remitted back to the Revisional Authority, to reconsider the entire records of the case, evidence, and the defence of the petitioner and take an appropriate decision in the matter. It was also observed that the issue of back wages would be considered by the Competent Authority only in the event any penalty less than dismissal from service is imposed upon the petitioner. He would contend that the Revisional Authority vide order dated 11.8.2017 inflicted the punishment of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect but the period from the date of termination of dismissal from service till 11.8.2017 has been declared as ‘No Work No Pay’. He would also contend that 3 according to Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules, the petitioner is entitled to get the entire benefits including salary, arrears of salary, increments etc. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the authority concerned had inflicted a major punishment of stoppage of one increment with noncumulative effect for a period of one year, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get arrears of salary. He would further submit that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner has already been reduced from dismissal to the stoppage of one increment. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment of stoppage of one increment for one year vide order dated 31.8.2001 by the Disciplinary Authority. The Commandant, Bilaspur exercising the power under Regulation 270 of the Police Regulations, issued a show- cause notice and thereafter, inflicted a penalty of dismissal from service vide order 30.9.2002. The petitioner preferred W.P. No.2729 of 2002 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 31.1.2013, observing in para 11 as under:- “(11) In the result, the order passed by the appellate authority as also the order passed by the revisional authority are declared illegal and unsustainable in law and are set- aside. The matter is remanded to the revisional authority to reconsider the entire records of the case, evidence, defence of the petitioner and take appropriate decision in the matter. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner shall be immediately reinstated in service, but the issue of back wages would be considered by the competent authority only in the event any penalty less than dismissal 4 from service is imposed upon the petitioner. The petition is accordingly allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated above.” 8. The Commandant, vide order dated 11.8.2017, reduced the penalty of dismissal from service to stoppage of one increment with non- cumulative effect. However, the period from the date of dismissal from services till 11.8.2017 has been declared as ‘No Work No Pay’. 9. The Fundamental Rules specially sub-rule (2) of Rule 54 clearly entitles the Government servant to full pay and allowances in case of full exoneration, then the question would be whether the State Government is justified in denying full pay and allowances to the petitioner invoking the principle of 'No Work No Pay' for the period from 30.9.2002 to 7.7.2013. 10. The principle of 'No Work No Pay' is based upon a fundamental concept in a Law of Contract of Employment namely, wages and salary are paid by the employer in consideration of work/service rendered by the employee. 'No Work No Pay' principle has been laid down keeping in view the public interest that a Government servant who does not discharge his duty is not allowed pay and arrears at the cost of the public exchequer. (See Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Brijmohan Kaur, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 488). 11. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Bihar and others v. Kripa Nand Singh and another, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 375 has observed that 'No Work No Pay' is the rule and 'No Work Yet Pay' is the exception. It was pointed out that the exception would apply only when the employee is compelled (compulsory waiting period) not to attend his duty without any violation or without any fault on his part. 5 12. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Madhav Prasad Sahrma, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 212 has held that principle of 'No Work No Pay' cannot be applied as a rule of thumb. Full back wages in certain circumstances may be justified particularly when promotion is wrongly denied. 13. Similarly, in the matter of Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah, reported (2007) 7 SCC 689, the Supreme Court has reiterated that principle of 'No Work No Pay' is not absolute in a given case, if it is that the person was willing to work but he 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". 14. In the considered opinion of this Court, the principle of 'No Work No Pay' would not be applicable where the rule expressly direct otherwise; like sub-rule (2) of Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules, which clearly provides that the Government servant who had been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired has been fully exonerated, shall be paid full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired, but subject to proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 54 and if the termination of the proceedings instituted against the Government servant had been delayed due to reasons directly attributable to the Government servant, but in that case also, the amount determined under proviso to sub-rule (2) shall not be less than the subsistence allowance and other allowances admissible under Rule 53, as such, when the rule expressly provides for the grant of full pay and allowances on full exoneration of the Government servant from punishment/criminal charges, the principle of 'No Work No Pay' would have no application and the said principle of 6 'No Work No Pay' would not override sub rule (2) of Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules which provides full pay and allowances on full exoneration. 15. 15. In view of the above legal position, the part of the impugned order dated 11.8.2017 (Annexure P/1) holding the petitioner to be not entitled to full pay and allowances from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the appellate authority to consider the case of the petitioner for the grant of full pay and allowances from 30.9.2002 to 7.7.2013 in light of sub-rule (2) of Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules and also in light of the judgment delivered by this Court in the matter of Shankar Lal Soni (died) through LR's v. State of Chhattisgarh and others (WPS No.994/2010), decided on 9.7.2021 within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 16. As informed by learned counsel by the petitioner, the petitioner has already retired from services. Therefore, the respondent authorities are directed to decide the matter of the petitioner, preferably, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 17. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi