1 2026:CGHC:755 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9359 of 2023 1 - Veenu Chaudhary (Died And Deleted) As Per Court Order Dated 15- 10-2025, Through Lrs- 1.1 - Smt. Shobhana Choudharie W/o Late Veenu Chaudhary Aged About 72 Years R/o Mission Compound Mungeli, Tehsil And Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 1.2 - Sheeba Choudharie D/o Late Veenu Chaudhary Aged About 45 Years R/o Mission Compound Mungeli, Tehsil And Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 1.3 - Smt. Shilpa Persson D/o Late Veenu Chaudhary Aged About 41 Years R/o Mission Compound Mungeli, Tehsil And Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 1.4 - Abhishek Choudhary S/o Late Veenu Chaudhary Aged About 39 Years R/o Mission Compound Mungeli, Tehsil And Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 492002. ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 2 - District Education Officer Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06.01.2026 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief:- “10.1. The Hon'ble Court may call for records from the respondents pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction and quash the order dated 17/04/2023 (Annexure P/5) to the extent that the period of absence from duty has been ordered as "no work no pay". 10.3. The Hon'ble Court may issue an appropriate writ or direction to the respondent authorities to grant wages to the petitioner for the period of absence from 06/01/1984 to 17/10/2006 and thereafter calculate the Pension and other retiral benefits payable to the petitioner. 10.4. The Hon'ble Court may grant cost of petition to the Petitioner. 10.5. The Hon'ble Court may grant any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice.” 3 2. Facts of the case :- the petitioner assails the order dated 17.04.2023 passed by Respondent No. 2, the District Education Officer, whereby the period of the petitioner’s absence from 06.01.1984 to 17.10.2006 has been treated as “no work no pay” and the respondent authorities have consequently directed computation of pensionary benefits on that basis. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed in complete disregard of the binding judgments of this Hon’ble Court, inasmuch as the order of the respondents declaring the said period as “dies non” had already been set aside by this Hon’ble Court in WPS No. 2238/2016, and thereafter the Hon’ble Division Bench, in Writ Appeal No. 270/2022, further quashed the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, the petitioner became entitled to continuity of service and consequential benefits, including payment of salary for the period of absence from 06.01.1984 to 17.10.2006; however, despite the clear legal position, the respondent authorities have once again declared the said period as “no work no pay,” which is ex facie arbitrary, contrary to the applicable service rules, and in patent violation of the judgments rendered by this Hon’ble Court, thereby necessitating the filing of the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities in treating the period of the petitioner’s absence as “no work no pay” is ex-facie illegal, 4 arbitrary, and unsustainable in law, inasmuch as a prolonged absence occasioned on account of genuine health issues cannot be equated with wilful or unauthorized absence from duty. It is contended that, in the present case, the petitioner’s leave was duly sanctioned by the competent authority after due consideration of the medical reports and certificates issued by the Medical Board, and admittedly no disciplinary enquiry was ever conducted against him in respect of the said absence. The conclusion drawn by the respondents that no facts justifying the petitioner’s long absence were placed on record is, therefore, manifestly erroneous and reflective of non-application of mind, as the detailed submissions explaining the petitioner’s inability to resume duties due to medical incapacity were completely ignored, rendering the impugned order arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is further urged that, in the absence of any disciplinary proceedings and without affording a proper and effective opportunity of hearing, the respondents were wholly unjustified in directing that the period of absence be treated as “no work no pay.” A bare perusal of the official records would clearly establish that the petitioner was not wilfully absent and that his leave stood sanctioned on the basis of valid medical certification; however, these material aspects were not taken into consideration while passing the order dated 17.04.2023. Lastly, it is submitted that this Hon’ble Court has already quashed the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the 5 petitioner, and, therefore, the respondents have committed a grave illegality in again penalising the petitioner by treating the said period as “no work no pay,” which action is wholly unsustainable in law. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from duty for a prolonged period of 22 years, 09 months, and 11 days, which by itself constitutes an exceptionally long absence. It is contended that the respondent authorities have, however, taken a lenient view by counting the said period solely for the limited purpose of grant of pensionary benefits. According to the records available, the petitioner did not render any service to the respondent department during the aforesaid period and, therefore, cannot claim entitlement to salary for the same. It is thus urged that the District Education Officer, Mungeli (C.G.) has rightly passed the order dated 17.04.2023 (Annexure P/5), declining the grant of salary by applying the well- established principle of “No Work No Pay” in respect of the period of 22 years, 09 months, and 11 days for which the petitioner has made the claim. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost care and particularly Annexure P/5 dated 17.04.2023. 6. Upon consideration thereof, it is evident that the petitioner remained absent from duty for an exceptionally long period of 22 6 years, 09 months, and 11 days. It is also not in dispute that during the said period the petitioner did not render any service to the respondent department. The principle of “No Work No Pay” is a well-settled proposition of service jurisprudence. In the absence of any specific statutory provision or judicial direction granting wages for a period during which no service has been rendered, an employee cannot claim salary as a matter of right. Mere setting aside of disciplinary proceedings or grant of continuity of service does not automatically entitle an employee to back wages, unless such entitlement is expressly granted by a competent Court. Although the petitioner has placed reliance on earlier orders passed by this Hon’ble Court and the Division Bench, a perusal of the said orders reveals that while the disciplinary proceedings were quashed, no positive direction was issued for payment of salary for the period of absence. Therefore, the petitioner’s claim for wages for the entire period from 06.01.1984 to 17.10.2006 is misconceived. 7. This Court further finds that the respondent authorities have adopted a balanced and equitable approach by counting the period of absence for the limited purpose of pensionary benefits, despite the fact that the petitioner did not discharge any duties during the said period. Such consideration sufficiently safeguards the interest of the petitioner and cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. On a holistic evaluation of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order 7 dated 17.04.2023 passed by the District Education Officer does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness, or perversity warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that this instant petition sans merits and is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena