Madhya Pradesh High Court
Seeta Charan Banwari vs M.P. Rajya Bhumi Vikas Nigam And Anr. on 30 July, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(4)MPHT232
ORDER S.P. Khare, J.
1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 5-2-2002 (Annexure P-14) by which it has been held by the Managing Director that the petitioner is not entitled to any salary from 4-12-1987 to 15-9-1996 on the principle of "no work no pay".
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working in M.P. Rajya Bhumi Vikas Nigam as an Accountant. He was removed from service by order dated 2-12-1987 after departmental enquiry. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal against this order before the Chairman of the Nigam. He set aside the order of removal and remanded the matter back for fresh departmental enquiry. The Managing Director of the Nigam filed Writ Petition No. 2684 of 1988 before this Court against the order of the Chairman and obtained a stay order on 6-8-1988 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner submitted an application for vacating aforesaid order but it was rejected by this Court. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed by this Court on 4-9-1996. A de novo enquiry was commenced against the petitioner and a minor penalty of "censure" was imposed upon the petitioner by order dated 26-7-2001. The petitioner opted for voluntary retirement and he was retired from 31-8-2001. The petitioner has not been paid his salary from 4-12-1987 to 15-9-1996.
3. The petitioner's case is that he could not work with the Nigam because the respondents obtained stay order against the order of the Chairman. According to the petitioner impugned order dated 5-2-2002 is illegal and the respondents should be directed to pay the salary for the aforesaid period to him. It is also stated that the impugned order could not be passed after retirement of the petitioner.
4. The respondents' case is that the petitioner has not worked during the period mentioned above and, therefore, he is not entitled to any salary.
5. The learned Counsel for both the sides have been heard. The only ground on which the salary for the period from 4-12-1987 to 15-9-1996 is being not paid to the petitioner is that he did not work during this period. The contention of the Nigam can not be accepted. The petitioner could not work during this period because of the stay order which was obtained from this Court by the respondents. The principle of "no work no pay" does not apply where employer creates the situation in which the employee can not work. The Supreme Court has held in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010 that the normal rule of "no work no pay" is not applicable to such cases where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. This is not a case where the employee remains away from work for his own reasons, although the work is offered to him.
6. In view of the above legal position the petitioner can not be deprived of his salary for the period mentioned above. He could not work because the respondents obtained stay order from this Court. No order was passed by the respondents depriving the petitioner of the salary for the period mentioned above when the order of imposing penalty of "censure" was passed after de novo departmental enquiry. The impugned order has been passed after the severance of the relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and the respondents. This is also the reason for quashing the impugned order.
7. In the result this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 5-2-2002 (Annexure P-14) is quashed. The respondents are directed to pay the salary of the petitioner for the period from 4-12-1987 to 15-9-1996.