Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sanjogita Devi vs Himachal Pradesh State Forest ... on 6 July, 2015
Author: Rajiv Sharma
Bench: Rajiv Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. 8597/2012Decided on: 6.7.2015 ___________________________________________________ .
Sanjogita Devi. ...Petitioner.
Versus
Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation Limited and others. ...Respondents.
______________________________________________________________ Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 No For the Petitioner: Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Sr. Advocate with r Mr. Karan Singh Parmar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: None.
____________________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge(oral):
In sequel to the judgment rendered by this Court, the petitioner has been placed as Junior Assistant with effect from 21.7.1999, i.e. the date from her junior Ms. Santosh was promoted on notional basis from 7.10.2008. Case of the respondents precisely is that since the petitioner has not worked on the higher post, she is not entitled to arrears of salary on the principles of "no work no pay". Petitioner was always ready and willing to work on the higher post and she has been 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:04 :::HCHP 2 prevented by the employer. Thus, the principles of "no work no pay" would not be applicable in the present case. The petitioner was entitled to actual monetary .
benefit with effect from 21.7.1999 to 7.10.2008.
2. This question is no more res integra in view of the law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. K.V. Jankiraman and others, (1991) 4 SCC 109. Their Lordships have held as under:
"25. We are not much impressed by the contentions advanced on behalf of the authorities. The normal rule of "no work no pay" is not applicable to cases such as the present one 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. It is for this reason that F.R. 17(1) will also be inapplicable to such cases."
3. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
Annexure P-7 dated 19.2.2011 is modified by ordering the payment of monetary benefits to the petitioner from 21.7.1999 to 7.10.2008 by applying the principles of severability. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.
(Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge.
6.7.2015 *awasthi* ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:04 :::HCHP