Court Cases

Allahabad High Court’s Landmark Ruling on “No Work, No Pay” Principle for State Government Employees


➡️ Click here to join our Whatsapp Group

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the principle of “no work, no pay” is not applicable when 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. The Court’s observation is based on a reading of Rules 54(2) and 54(4), which shows that in Uttar Pradesh, the principle ‘no work-no pay’ is not applicable in such cases. The Court further emphasized that a government servant, upon reinstatement after the order of dismissal or removal is set aside, cannot be denied his entire pay and allowances for the period he was out of service. The specific amount to which the government servant would be entitled depends on whether the case is covered by Rule 54(2) or by Rule 54(4).

Case Background and Court’s Decision

The case involved a Petitioner who was employed as a Follower with the U.P Police. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the petitioner, leading to his dismissal from the services. However, his appeal was allowed, and he was reinstated in the services. Despite this, the Superintendent of Police directed that the petitioner shall not be paid his salary for the period during which he was out of service because of the dismissal order, based on the principle of ‘no work no pay’. The Court held that if a government servant is not exonerated of the charges but is still reinstated in service or if 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 inquiry is proposed to be held, the government servant shall not be entitled to full pay and allowances. However, the government servant will be entitled to be paid such amount 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. The Court also noted that the Petitioner was entitled to full pay and allowances for the period, and his absence from service during that period has to be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, directing the Superintendent of Police to pay the petitioner his full pay and allowances for the said period along with simple interest calculated at the rate of 6% per annum and also the cost of the writ petition.

Legal Representation

Advocate Shyam Lal appeared for the Petitioner, while the Standing Counsel appeared for the Respondents.

Related Legal Precedents

The principle of ‘no work, no pay’ and its applicability in cases of reinstatement or setting aside of dismissal orders has been a subject of legal consideration in various contexts. The Court’s decision in this case aligns with the interpretation of Fundamental Rules, specifically sub-rule (2) of Rule 54, which entitles the Government servant for full pay and allowances in case of full exoneration.

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court’s observation and decision in this case provide important insights into the entitlement of State Government employees for pay and allowances in specific circumstances, shedding light on the application of the ‘no work, no pay’ principle and the considerations involved in reinstatement and setting aside of dismissal orders.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Home
Calculators
Menu
Search