Madhya Pradesh High Court
Veerendra Kumar Dhagat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2026
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20120
1 WP-8616-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 8616 of 2017
VEERENDRA KUMAR DHAGAT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shubham Dhagat - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Avnish Khatri - Panel Lawyer for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by that part of the order contained in Annexure-P/3, dated 18-09-2012. The counsel for the petitioner submits that a perusal of the impugned order reflects that though the petitioner has been granted seniority with effect from 12-06-1998, but the monetary benefits/arrears have been denied by applying the principle of "no work no pay". It is further contended that the issue does not require elaborate consideration, as paragraph No.2 of the impugned order specifically reflects that the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Damoh as well as the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub-Division , Tejgarh had certified that the petitioner had been discharging the duties of Ameen for a period of more than 10 years. On the basis of the said certification, the benefit of seniority was extended to the petitioner with effect from 12-06-1998.
2. The counsel for the petitioner contends that once it has been Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 13-03-2026 12:18:39 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20120 2 WP-8616-2017 acknowledged in paragraph No.2 of the impugned order that the petitioner had performed the duties of Ameen for more than 10 years, there was no justification with the Engineer-in-Chief to deny the monetary benefits as well as arrears to the petitioner with effect from 12-06-1998. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
3 . Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submitted that the respondents/Authority has passed a well-reasoned order and the same does not call for any interference in the present writ petition.
4. Having considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties, a perusal of the record reflects that the impugned order contained in Annexure-P/3 takes into account the certificates issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tejgarh as well as the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Damoh. Both the authorities have certified that the petitioner had performed the duties of Ameen for a period of more than 10 years. On the basis of the said certificates, the Engineer-in-Chief arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to seniority with effect from 12- 06-1998. Accordingly, a decision was taken to extend the said benefit of seniority to the petitioner. However, without assigning any reason and for the reasons best known to the Engineer-in-Chief, it was further concluded in the said order that the petitioner would not be entitled to any monetary benefit while applying the principle of no work no pay. The reason for invoking the said principle is neither reflected in the impugned order nor in the return filed by the State.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 13-03-2026 12:18:39NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20120 3 WP-8616-2017
5. It is not a case where the petitioner did not perform duties against the post of Ameen. The factum regarding the performance of duties against the post of Ameen has not been disputed by any of the authorities. On the contrary, the said authorities have certified that the petitioner had performed the duties of Ameen for more than 10 years, and the said certificate was acted upon, which ultimately ensued in issuance of the impugned order contained in Annexure-P/3, dated 18-09-2012.
6. In view of the aforesaid certification regarding the performance of duties by the petitioner, there was no justification to deprive the petitioner of the monetary benefits. Accordingly, the part of the impugned order contained in Annexure-P/3, to the extent it denies monetary benefits to the present petitioner by applying the principle of "No work no Pay" , is hereby set aside. The remaining part of the order shall remain intact.
7. The respondents are directed to extend all monetary benefits to the petitioner which are admissible to him on the basis of the order contained in Annexure-P/3, whereby the petitioner's seniority was recognized with effect from 12-06-1998. The said benefits shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner within 60 day from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
8 . Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed/disposed of in the above terms.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 13-03-2026 12:18:39 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20120 4 WP-8616-2017 ac Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 13-03-2026 12:18:39