Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> High Court of Allahabad Principle of 'no work-no pay' not applicable while considering the employees' entitlement of pay for the period for which they were not in service, if the order dismissing them is set aside MANU/UP/2540/2024 - (16 Jul 2024) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Dinesh Prasad Vs. State of UP and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:113149)</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The petitioner is employed with U.P Police. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him for being absented from duty without any information and then, later joining hunger strike while refusing his mess duty. After inquiry, disciplinary authority vide his order dated 09.01.2020 dismissed the petitioner from service. The order was challenged and the petitioner was reinstated in service.

As per Rule 73 of the Financial Hand Book Volume-II Part II to IV A, government servant who remains absent after the end of his leave is entitled to no leave salary for the period of such absence. Therefore, the petitioner is denied payment of salary for the period between 09.01.2020 to 29.09.2020 as he was out of service on the ground that the acts of the petitioner for which he had been charged were acts of gross negligence and amounted to dereliction of duty and hence, the petitioner was not entitled to salary for the period he was out of service. 
The main contention was that there was nothing in dismissal order dated 9.1.2020 as well as the order dated 11.2.2024 stating that the petitioner was any time under suspension during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. 
A reading of Rules 54(2) and 54(4) shows that, in Uttar Pradesh, the principle 'no work-no pay' is not applicable while considering the entitlement of State Government employees for pay and allowances for the period they were not in service if the order dismissing, removing or compulsory retiring them from service is set aside either in appeal or review and the government servant is reinstated in service and no further inquiry is proposed to be held. Rule 54 provides that if the government servant who has been reinstated in service after the order dismissing or removing him from service has been set aside in appeal or review and he has been fully exonerated of the charges, the government servant shall be entitled to full pay and allowances that he would have been entitled had he not been removed or dismissed from service and the period of absence from service shall be treated as period spent on duty for all purposes. However, where the government servant is not exonerated of the charges but is still reinstated in service or the order dismissing or removing a government servant is set aside in appeal or review solely on the ground of non-compliance with the requirements of Article 311(1) and (2) of the Constitution and no further enquiry is proposed to be held, the government servant shall not be entitled to full pay and allowances but will be entitled to be paid such amount (not being the whole) of the pay and allowances as the competent authority may decide after giving the employee notice of the quantum proposed and after considering his representation but it shall not be less than the subsistence allowance and other allowances admissible under Rule 53. It is apparent that, on his reinstatement after the order of dismissal or removal is set aside, a government servant cannot be denied his entire pay and allowances for the period he was out of service. The amount which the government servant would be entitled to get would depend on whether the case of the government servant is covered by Rule 54(2) or by Rule 54 (4). 
The court observed that the petitioner has been fully exonerated vide order dated 04.09.2020, therefore, the case of the petitioner is covered by Rule 54(2). It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was earning through any employment elsewhere for the period he was out of service. Thus, the petitioner cannot be denied his salary by invoking Rule 54(8). Thus, by virtue of Rules 54(2) and 54(3), the petitioner is entitled to full pay and allowances for the period between 9.1.2020 to 29.9.2020 and his absence from service during the said period has to be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Allahabad HC, no work-no pay</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>