In W.P.(MD) No.17863 of 2023, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court ruled that the principle of ‘no work no pay’ cannot be applied when an employee is not at fault and is unlawfully prevented from discharging official duties. The Court quashed the Tahsildar’s order denying salary and service regularization to petitioner C. Markandan, a former Village Administrative Officer, for the period from 01.02.2018 to 18.03.2019.
Case Background
C. Markandan was appointed as Village Thalaiyari in 1983 and promoted as Village Administrative Officer (VAO) in 2016. Due to an erroneous entry of his date of birth as 28.01.1958 instead of the correct 23.03.1961, he was prematurely retired on 30.04.2018. His request for correction of date of birth was initially rejected for being beyond the five-year time limit under service rules.
Markandan subsequently obtained a favorable order from the competent civil court in 2015, and a corrected birth certificate was issued. However, he was not reinstated until the Division Bench of the High Court, in WA(MD) No.147 of 2019 (judgment dated 05.03.2019), directed the authorities to recognize his correct date of birth and continue him in service. He was reinstated on 19.03.2019 and formally retired on 31.03.2019.
Despite this, the Tahsildar, by order dated 09.02.2023, denied him salary and retirement benefits for the period between 01.02.2018 and 18.03.2019 on the ground of ‘no work no pay.’
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner submitted that he was willing and eligible to continue in service during the disputed period but was unlawfully prevented due to administrative error. He argued that the denial of benefits directly contravened the Division Bench’s judgment, which had reinstated him with recognition of the correct date of birth. He also submitted that the impugned order was passed without granting him an opportunity of hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
Respondents’ Contentions
The fourth respondent argued that since the petitioner did not actually render service between 01.02.2018 and 18.03.2019, he was not entitled to salary for that period. His pay was notionally fixed to process pensionary benefits. It was also claimed that the petitioner was delaying the pension proposal process by not cooperating with documentation requirements.
Court’s Observations
Justice Battu Devanand rejected the respondents’ stand and held that the petitioner was not responsible for the break in service. The Court referred to binding precedent laid down by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah [(2007) 7 SCC 689], stating:
“The Court, in a given case, may hold that the person was willing to work but 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’.”
The Court also noted:
“The petitioner is not at fault for not continuing in service as the Village Administrative Officer from 01.02.2018 to 18.03.2019. The respondents cannot take a stand that he did not serve during the said period and apply the ‘no work no pay’ principle.”
Furthermore, the Court relied on the High Court’s earlier ruling in W.P. No.9660 of 2019, observing:
“It can never be stated that the petitioner was at fault during that period by not doing any office work. He should not be penalised without any payment of salary on the plea of ‘no work no pay’.”
The judgment reaffirmed the position that the ‘no work no pay’ principle is not absolute and must be assessed contextually when employment was denied without fault of the employee.
Final Directions
Holding the denial of salary and benefits as unjust, illegal, and contrary to the earlier Division Bench judgment, the Court issued the following directions:
- The impugned order dated 09.02.2023 passed by the Tahsildar was quashed.
- The respondents were directed to grant full retirement benefits, including for the period from 01.02.2018 to 18.03.2019, within four weeks from the date of the judgment.
The Court concluded:
“This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for all service benefits continuously till his retirement i.e., on 31.03.2019 FN. The impugned proceedings are illegal and liable to be quashed.”
There was no order as to costs.
Case Title: C. Markandan v. The District Collector & Others,
Case no.: W.P.(MD) No.17863 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD) No.14948 of 2023
