Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bal Krishan Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2935
1 WP-3429-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 22 nd OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 3429 of 2022
BAL KRISHAN PANDEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Ruchi Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Shiraz Qureshi - GA for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Sheopur, whereby he has been denied salary for the period from 22.03.2020 to 07.05.2020 on the principle of "No Work No Pay". He has also challenged the orders dated 03.04.2021 and 27.12.2021 passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Gwalior Division, Gwalior, and the Chief Conservator of Forest, Bhopal, respectively whereby his appeal and review application filed against the aforesaid orders have been rejected.
2. It is gathered from the records of this case at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Accountant in the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Sheopur. On account of COVID-19 pandemic, the Government of Madhya Pradesh through Public Health & Public Welfare Department, declared the State of Madhya Pradesh to be a COVID-19 infected State. Vide notification dated 19.03.2020, the State Government directed that the offices of Government Departments shall function with 50% staff on alternate days, with a further Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 01/24/2026 02:39:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2935 2 WP-3429-2022 direction that the staff who were asked to stay at home shall not leave the headquarter without permission. It is also gathered from the record that lockdown was imposed in the State w.e.f. 25.03.2020. However, the staff of Government offices were instructed not to leave the headquarters without permission and to attend duties whenever called for.
3. On 03.04.2020, when the petitioner was called on telephone, he informed that he was not available at the headquarter at Sheopur and was at his hometown at Datia. A show-cause notice was issued to him by respondent no.4 on 04.04.2020, alleging that he left the headquarter without permission of the Controlling Authority and that the reason assigned for leaving the headquarter was stated to be lockdown. It was also stated in the show-cause notice that during lockdown also, he was required to stay at headquarter and to work from home. He was also required to attend duty whenever asked for. The petitioner was thus asked to submit his explanation within seven days.
4. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice on 23.04.2020 (Annexure P/5). He expressed his inability to come to the office because of the lockdown. Regarding his leaving the headquarter on 21.03.2020, he stated that he is a heart patient and had undergone heart surgery in the previous year. He further stated that since his medicines were not available in Sheopur and he suddenly became unwell, he left for his hometown at Datia, to procure medicines. Thereafter, since lockdown was imposed, he could not return to the office.
5. Respondent No.3 considered his explanation and was not satisfied with the same. Accordingly, the salary for the period from 22.03.2020 to 07.05.2020 was denied to the petitioner on the principle of No Work No Pay. The appeal and Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 01/24/2026 02:39:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2935 3 WP-3429-2022 review application filed by the petitioner were also rejected as stated above. Challenging these orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the same averments which were made in response to the show-cause notice. In substance, it is argued that the petitioner left the headquarter on 21.03.2020 as he suddenly became unwell and his medicines were not available in Sheopur, and later on, due to lockdown, he could not return to Sheopur. On the other hand, the learned Govt. Advocate supported the impugned orders and submitted that admittedly the petitioner left Sheopur (headquarter) without permission of controlling authority. The said act was prior to imposition of lockdown. He also submitted that the explanation given by petitioner was not found acceptable as no material in support thereof was produced by him. He thus submitted that no interference is warranted in petitioner's favour.
7. Considered the arguments and perused the records.
8. It is no more in dispute that the petitioner left Sheopur, which was his headquarter, on 21.03.2020 without making any application or obtaining permission from the Controlling Authority. The reason assigned for leaving the headquarter was his sudden illness. However, no document in support thereof has been brought on record by the petitioner. If he was unwell to such an extent that he was required to leave the headquarter in emergency, he must have visited some doctor for his checkup, The medical documents could have easily been produced by him on record. The lockdown cannot be a justification for leaving headquarter as the same was prior to imposition of lockdown. Thus, the authorities were justified in not accepting the explanation of the petitioner.
9. As is evident from the notification dated 19.03.2020, the Government staff was required to stay at their headquarters and to attend the office whenever Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 01/24/2026 02:39:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2935 4 WP-3429-2022 called for. On 03.04.2020, when during lockdown, the petitioner was required at office, he was not available at headquarter. Thus, the act of the petitioner in leaving the headquarter without permission was in violation of the instructions issued by the competent authorities. Therefore, the petitioner has rightly been denied salary for the period from 22.03.2020 to 07.05.2020. From the impugned order dated 17.12.2020, it does not appear that the said period has been treated as dies-non. Only the salary has been denied which cannot be said to be unreasonable. Thus, the action taken against the petitioner is not so grave which warrants interference by this Court.
10. The petitioner does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld. The petition is dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI) JUDGE bj/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 01/24/2026 02:39:19 PM