1 CGHC010314252026 2026:CGHC:36749 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6201 of 2026 Dilip Tiwari S/o Late Naresh Chandra Tiwari Aged About 66 Years Retired Employee, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur District Bilaspur, R/o Rajkishor Nagar, Parijat Colony House No. H.I.G. - 33, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Directorate Urban Administration And Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. G.A. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 18/08/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Sub Revenue Inspector in the year 1982 and thereafter his services were transferred to the State of Chhattisgarh, where he continuously served in various Municipalities and held the post of Chief Municipal Officer. He 2 submits that pursuant to the order dated 03.10.2013, the petitioner was posted as Chief Municipal Officer, Gharghoda and thereafter worked as In-charge Chief Municipal Officer, Dharamjaigarh from 04.10.2015. He further submits that the petitioner continuously discharged the duties of Chief Municipal Officer during the relevant period and, therefore, was entitled to the corresponding salary and consequential benefits. It is further submitted that despite the petitioner having actually discharged the duties of the post, by order dated 28.03.2018, his pay was directed to be fixed only notionally on the principle of “no work, no pay”. The petitioner repeatedly represented his grievance before the authorities, but the same was not decided, which led to filing of WPS No. 778/2022. This Court, vide order dated 25.03.2026, directed the respondent No. 1 to decide the petitioner's representation within 120 days. However, the representation has been rejected vide order dated 22.06.2026 reiterating the principle of “no work, no pay”. Learned counsel submits that since the petitioner had actually performed the duties of Chief Municipal Officer, denial of the corresponding salary and benefits on the ground of “no work, no pay” is unjustified and the impugned order dated 22.06.2026 deserves to be set aside. 2. Learned State counsel, opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was not entitled to the pay attached to the promotional post for the period prior to his actual joining on the said post. He submits that 3 the pay was rightly fixed notionally in accordance with the applicable rules and the settled principle of “no work, no pay”. It is further submitted that the representation of the petitioner has already been duly considered and rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 22.06.2026, which is in accordance with the earlier order dated 28.03.2018 and the applicable rules. Therefore, no interference is warranted with the impugned order and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 4. From the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the documents placed on record, it is apparent that the petitioner is claiming the difference of salary attached to the post of Chief Municipal Officer for the period prior to his actual joining on the said post. The petitioner seeks such benefit on the ground that he had discharged the duties of the said post during the relevant period. 5. However, the respondents have taken a specific stand that the petitioner was not entitled to the pay attached to the promotional post prior to his actual joining on the said post and that his pay was accordingly fixed notionally in accordance with the applicable rules and the principle of “no work, no pay”. The said stand has been reiterated by the competent authority while deciding the petitioner's representation vide order dated 22.06.2026. 4 6. This Court, while disposing of WPS No. 778/2022 vide order dated 25.03.2026, had directed the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. In compliance thereof, the petitioner's representation has been considered and decided by a reasoned order dated 22.06.2026. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the said order has been passed in violation of any statutory provision or applicable service rules. 7. In the absence of any specific provision entitling the petitioner to draw the salary attached to the promotional post for the period prior to his actual joining, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order dated 22.06.2026. The principle of “no work, no pay”, as applied by the respondents in the facts of the present case, cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to law. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti