In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that the principle of “no work, no pay” is not applicable when considering the entitlement of reinstated state government employees to pay and allowances for periods they were out of service due to dismissal orders that were later set aside.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Salil Kumar Rai in the case of Dinesh Prasad vs State of UP and 3 Others (Writ – A No. – 5033 of 2024) on July 16, 2024.
Background of the Case:
The petitioner, Dinesh Prasad, was employed as a Follower with the U.P Police. He was dismissed from service on January 9, 2020, following disciplinary proceedings. However, his appeal was allowed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gorakhpur Region, on September 4, 2020, exonerating him of all charges. Consequently, he was reinstated on September 29, 2020.
The Superintendent of Police, District Deoria, issued a notice on January 18, 2024, asking the petitioner to show cause why his services for the period he was out of service (January 9, 2020 to September 29, 2020) should not be regularized without payment of salary on the principle of ‘no work no pay’. Subsequently, an order was passed on February 11, 2024, denying the petitioner his salary for this period.
Legal Issues and Court’s Decision:
1. Applicability of ‘No Work, No Pay’ Principle:
The court ruled that the principle of ‘no work-no pay’ is not applicable in cases where government employees are reinstated after their dismissal orders are set aside. Justice Rai observed: “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”.
2. Interpretation of Financial Handbook Rules:
The court held that the Superintendent of Police erroneously applied Rule 73 of the Financial Handbook Volume-II Part II to IV, which deals with absence after leave expiry. Instead, the court stated that Rule 54 was applicable in this case.
3. Entitlement to Full Pay and Allowances:
As the petitioner was fully exonerated by the appellate authority, the court ruled that his case falls under Rule 54(2) of the Financial Handbook. Consequently, he is entitled to full pay and allowances for the period he was out of service.
Court’s Observations:
Justice Rai emphasized: “It is apparent that, on his reinstatement after the order of dismissal or removal is set aside, a government servant can not be denied his entire pay and allowances for the period he was out of service”.
The court also noted: “The only circumstance in which the government servant can be denied his pay and allowances or part of the same for the period he was out of service is specified in Rule 54 (8)”.
Also Read
Outcome:
The High Court quashed the order dated February 11, 2024, passed by the Superintendent of Police, District Deoria, terming it “illegal and contrary to law”.
The court directed the Superintendent of Police, District Deoria, to pay the petitioner his full pay and allowances for the period from January 9, 2020 to September 29, 2020, along with 6% simple interest per annum. Additionally, the petitioner was awarded costs of Rs. 25,000.
