Jharkhand High Court
Gupteshwar Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 1 July, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Deepak Roshan
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17451-DB )
L.P.A. No. 440 of 2023
Gupteshwar Prasad, S/o Shri Sahebu Bedia, R/o Vill-
Ordana, P.O.- Ordana, P.S.- Petarwar, Dist.- Bokaro.
... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt.
of Jharkhand at Project Building, Ranchi, P.O.- Dhurwa,
P.S.- Jagarnathpur, Ranchi.
2. Principal Secretary, Rural Development, at Project
Building, Ranchi, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur,
Ranchi.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S.- Dhanbad,
Dist.- Dhanbad.
4. Deputy Development Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O. &
P.S.- Dhanbad, Dist.- Dhanbad.
5. Deputy Secretary Rural Development, at Project Building,
Ranchi, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, Ranchi.
... Respondents
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
----
For the Appellant : Mr. R.N. Sahay, Adv.
For the Resp. : Mr. Amitesh Kr. Geasen, AC to AAG-IA
----
Dated : 01/07/2025
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :
1. Heard Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Amitesh Kumar Geasen, learned AC to AAG- IA.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1713/2023, whereby and whereunder, the prayer of the writ petitioner/appellant for payment of bank wages for the period from 17-10-2017 to 13-08-2021 as held by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad to be not entitled, has been affirmed and the writ application has been dismissed.
3. The factual matrix of the case reveals that the writ petitioner was working as an Assistant Engineer, Baghmara L.P.A. NO. 440 OF 2023 1 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17451-DB ) Block, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand since July, 2016 under the MNREGA Project. The writ petitioner was suspended from service pursuant to institution of Baghmara P.S. Case No. 53/2017 on 07-10-2017 and he remained under suspension till 20-12-2018. On 21-12- 2018, the writ petitioner was served with an order of termination which was the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(S) No. 1274/2019 and this Court vide order dated 08-03-2021, had directed the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner and decide the same within 06 months in light of the fact that no evidence has been found against him in the said criminal case and that the contract of two similarly situated employees have been renewed by the department. When in spite of repeated reminders, the said order was not complied by the concerned authority, a contempt application was preferred by the writ petitioner in Contempt Case (Cvl.) No. 376/2021 subsequent to which the directions were complied with and the writ petitioner was allowed to join his services from 14-08-2021. The writ petitioner thereafter, preferred a representation claiming back wages and when the same was not acted upon, he had preferred another writ application in W.P.(S) No. 384/2022 in which vide order dated 08-06-2022, the respondents were directed to consider the case of the writ petitioner and pass a speaking order assigning valid and concrete reasons. The writ petitioner had accordingly submitted a representation dated 23-07-2022 with a request for back wages, but vide order dated 22-09-2022, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad had rejected such claim by applying the principle "No Work, No Pay". The order dated 22-09-2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad was under challenge before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1713/2023 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 27-04-2023 which is the order impugned to the present appeal.
L.P.A. NO. 440 OF 2023 2Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17451-DB )
4. It has been submitted by Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned senior counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner that the writ petitioner had been restrained from work illegally without any basis and, therefore, the respondents cannot take the plea of "No Work, No Pay". The writ petitioner was not gainfully employed during the period he was out of service and since the writ petitioner was taken back in service, his status was restored to the position as if he was never terminated. Reference has been made to the case of Pradeep v. Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. reported in (2022) 02 SCC-683 and Md. Abdul Qadri & Anr. v. Director General of Police, Assam & Ors. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 611.
5. Mr. Amitesh Kumar Geasen, learned AC to AAG-IA has submitted that the writ petitioner was appointed on contractual basis and during the period of his termination and subsequent renewal of contract, the writ petitioner never worked and, therefore, the principle of "No Work, No Pay" has rightly been applied to the case of the writ petitioner.
6. The writ petitioner was appointed on a contractual basis under the MNREGA Project and with respect to certain allegations of irregularities committed in completion of project in Daludih village, Baghmara P.S. Case No. 53/2017 was instituted and the writ petitioner was suspended and subsequent thereto, his contract was not renewed. By virtue of an order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1274/2019, the contract of the writ petitioner was renewed. The denial of back wages is what has been agitated by the writ petitioner. It had come in course of investigation of Baghmara P.S. Case No. 53/2017 that the involvement of the writ petitioner in the irregularity under the Scheme was not found. In fact, the writ petitioner was prevented from discharging his duty only on the basis of suspicion of indulging in defalcation under the Scheme. The writ petitioner has categorically averred in the writ application that he was not L.P.A. NO. 440 OF 2023 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17451-DB ) gainfully employed during the period, he was out of service.
7. In the case of Pradeep v. Manganese Ore (India) Ltd., reported in (2022) 3 SCC 683, it has been held as follows.
"12. It is, undoubtedly, true when the question arises as to whether the back wages is to be given and as to what is to be the extent of back wages, these are matters which will depend on the facts of the case as noted in Deepali Gundu Surwase [Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 184] . In a case where it is found that the employee was not at all at fault and yet, he was visited with illegal termination or termination which is actually activised by malice, it may be unfair to deny him the fruits of the employment which he would have enjoyed but for the illegal/malafide termination. The effort of the Court must be to then to restore the status quo in the manner which is appropriate in the facts of each case. The nature of the charges, the exact reason for the termination as evaluated and, of course, the question as to whether the employee was gainfully employed would be matters which will enter into the consideration by the Court."
8. The respondent Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad in his order refusing to grant back wages to the writ petitioner vide order dated 22-09-2022, has mentioned about the writ petitioner not discharging his duty during the period he was out of service.
L.P.A. NO. 440 OF 2023 4Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17451-DB ) Once the contract of the writ petitioner has been terminated, it is but natural that he will not be allowed to perform his duty. The factors which are necessary for consideration by the concerned respondent relating to the claim of back wages by the writ petitioner are not at all reflected in the said order dated 22-09- 2022. The learned Single Judge has affirmed the view of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad in the order dated 22-09-2022 on the principle of "No Work, No Pay" without delving into the merits of the claim of the writ petitioner.
9. We, therefore, in view of the reasons assigned hereinabove, set aside the order dated 27-04-2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1713/2023 and remand the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad (respondent no. 3) to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and in accordance with the observations made by us after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. The exercise indicated above should be completed within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
10. This appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.
11. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 1st Day of July, 2025 Preet/N.A.F.R. L.P.A. NO. 440 OF 2023 5