Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed against the order passed by the Superintendent of Police (‘SP’), wherein he directed that the petitioner should not be paid his salary for the period during which he was out of service on the principle of ‘no work no pay’, Salil Kumar Rai, J. held that the petitioner had been wrongly denied his salary for the period between 9-1-2020 to 29-9-2020, therefore, he is entitled to the cost of the writ petition which is quantified as Rs.25,000/- and is also entitled to interest on the pay and allowances payable to him for the period he was out of service.
Thus, the Court directed the SP to pay the petitioner his full pay and allowances for the period of absence along with simple interest calculated at the rate of 6% per annum and also, the cost of the writ petition within a period of one month from the date of this order.
Background:
The petitioner is employed as a follower with the U.P Police. Thereafter, Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him under Rule 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991 (‘Rules, 1991’) and a charge sheet was served on the petitioner. The charge against the petitioner was that the petitioner, without informing his Officers and without any leave, was absent from duty for 3 days. Another charge against the petitioner was that after joining, the petitioner went on hunger strike and refused to resume his mess duty which adversely affected the reputation of the police force.
The petitioner denied the charges against him and the inquiry report was submitted on holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, the SP dismissed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was allowed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, and he exonerated the petitioner of the charges levelled against him. Consequently, the SP, reinstated the petitioner in service.
Thereafter, the SP issued notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why his services for the period the petitioner was out of service be not regularised without payment of salary on the principle of ‘no work no pay’.
The SP has denied salary to the petitioner for the period he was out of service on the ground that the acts of the petitioner for which he had been charged were acts of gross negligence and amounted to dereliction of duty. The order has been challenged in the present petition.
Issue: Whether the petitioner was entitled to his salary for the period during which the petitioner was not in service had to be considered and decided under Rule 54 of the Financial Handbook Volume-II (Part II to IV)?
Analysis and Decision:
After taking note of Rules 54(2) and 54(4) of the Financial Handbook in Uttar Pradesh, the Court noted that the principle ‘no work-no pay’ is not applicable while considering the entitlement of State Government employees for pay and allowances for the period they were not in service, if the order dismissing, removing or compulsory retiring them from service is set aside either in appeal or review and the government servant is reinstated in service and no further inquiry is proposed to be held. Thus, on his reinstatement after the order of dismissal or removal is set aside, a government servant cannot be denied his entire pay and allowances for the period he was out of service.
The Court highlighted that the amount the government servant would be entitled to get would depend on whether the government servant’s case is covered by Rule 54(2) or by Rule 54(4).
The Court said that as the order dismissing the petitioner has been set aside in appeal and the petitioner has been fully exonerated by the appellate authority vide its order dated 4-9-2020, therefore, the case of the petitioner is covered by Rule 54(2).
The petitioner was not earning through any employment elsewhere for the period he was out of service. Thus, the petitioner cannot be denied his salary by invoking Rule 54(8). Thus, by virtue of Rules 54(2) and 54(3), the petitioner is entitled to full pay and allowances for the period between 9-1-2020 to 29-9-2020 and his absence from service during the said period has to be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes.
Thus, the Court quashed the order passed by the Superintendent of Police for being illegal and contrary to law.
[Dinesh Prasad v. State of UP, 2024 SCC OnLine All 3604, decided on 16-07-2024]
