Petitioner, a government lecturer, claimed salary arrears for the period 1995-1997. The Court held that since he did not work during this period and was habitually absent without leave, denial of salary based on 'no work no pay' was justified. The writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
i:J^S-^ ' ;.^-;. ;i;
.-—A
•< INTHEM.RSTATEADMINISTRATIVETI INAL ATpAIPUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION N0. ^g-?/ 9< F 1998
.E-' •«'
APPLICANTS
t^p^^rssiej'
VIDYADHAR MISHRA _^-'-——— AGED ABOUT 53YEARS, S/0 LATE SHRISATYADEO MISHBA
LECTURER, GOVT. MULTI H.S. SCHOOL, ~ PRESENTLYRAIPUR(M.R)FORCED TO JOIN_UNDER PRQTESTATOOVTH.S.SGHOOL, BHANSOJIN DIST. RAIPUR R/0 RAJARAM CHAWL, NEAR RLY STATION RAIPUR (M.P.)
VERSUS
NON-APPLICANTS/ : (1) STATEOFM.R
THROUGH SECRETRY, SCHQOL EDUCATION MANTRALAYA, , VALLABH BHAWAN,BHOPAL(M.P.) COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIG INSTRUCTIONS, (2) GOVERNMENTOFM.R.,
DIRECT-OFiATE OF EDUGATION (DPI OFFICE) NEAR GHETAKBRIDGE,BHOPAL(M.P.) JOINT DIREGTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, (3)
EDUCATION.DEPTT *
EDUCATIONDN. RAIPUR
P.0. PENSION BADA ARVIND NAGARWARD RAIPURfM.P.) (4) PRINCIPAL. GOVT. MULTI.H.'S. SCHOOL. RAIPUR (M.P.)
AlfPi-IGffnON/PETITIONUNDERSECTIONISOFTHEADIUllNISTRAnVETRIBUNAL AE^ 1985 (N0.13 OF 1985) READ WlTH ARTICLES 14 .16.21 &311 OF THE CONSTltUTlON OF INDIA CONSIDERED WITH PRINCIPLESOF NffTURAL JUSTICE
PARTICULARS OFAPPLieANTION
1. PARTICULAROF APPLICANTS ASINCAUSETITLE
(i) OrderNo. gw^/^T.?/5i(T.7^'.3:i3./'^^7Y°y Date 18-03-97 . (") Passedby jQintDirectorofPubliclnstructions, Education Deptt.Edycation Dn. Raipyr(M.R) (iv) Subject in Brief: In supereession of the estt. Powers Ordering sue moto permition Ex-Rarte djrecting the applicant to Joinatffieouistationatherestt. at(3ovt.H.S.SChQOl,8honso]^)/ithOutany valid transfer orderagainsftiispostingat Govt. Multi.M,&School,RaipurANNEXURE-1
"jigB-!-
T~^
3
tip^,
a:|!;t<:^
"y
'"
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPU R
WPS No. 2522 of 2005
NAFR
a
Vidyadhar Mishra
-—Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. (now Chhattisgarh) And Ors.
-— Respondent
For Petitioner
Shri P.P. Sahu, Advocate
For RespondenVState Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer
Hon'bl^Shri Justice Prashant Kumar h/Iishra
Order On Board
06/04/2016
^it;:
v^
•^/
"i. ,.. - ..->&'
till his father recovers from ailment, however, the petitioner did not turn up in the school till he was served with notice dated 1-11-1995 to the effect that his absence without information or permission on and after 28-7-1993 is in violation of Government servant conduct rules and he appears to be not willing to serve in the Government. The petitionerwasalsodirectedtoshowcausewhyhisservices may not be dispensed with.
3.
In response to the above notice, the petitioner appeared in the school on 13-11-1995 and moved an application for permissionto joinduties. This application was sent to the Joint Director (Education), who accorded such permission on 18-3-1997.
:iin-'^^-1^^2il^H;^2uE^^i^^
-ii
1
,? •y
attended the school only in response to the notice dated 1-11-1995. Even after permitted to join, the petitioner again remained absent 26-6-1997 to 31-12-2005 i.e. the date of his superannuation. Shri Tripathi would further submit that in his service period the petitioner remained absent without seeking permission or moving leave application for a total periodof13 years.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the papers, it would appear that the petitioner was habituated in remaining absent from duties without application or seeking permission from the higher authorities. Even if the petitioner's father was not keeping well and was required to be attended properly, it is to be seen that the petitioner was staying at Raipur, which is also the place where the school was located. It is not a case where his father was living at some other station and the petitioner was not able to leave his father. It also appears, but for the communication dated 1-11-1995 asking the petitioner to show cause why his services be not dispensed with for his failure to attend duties, the petitioner may not have turned up in the school.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the respondents have treated the petitioner's absence leniently by not
. l^-
proceeding departmentally against him and allow him to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation without any disciplinary proceeding.
Since the petitioner has not worked from November, 1995 to March, 1997 i.e. the period for which he is claiming his salary, denial of salary on the principle of 'no work no pay' is fully justified keeping in view of the conduct of the petitioner in habitually remaining absent from the duties without seeking leave.
Ex consequenti, the writ petition, sans substratum,'is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd//Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge
Gowri
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a government servant is entitled to salary for the period from November 1995 to March 1997 when he did not perform duties and the court denied salary based on the principle of 'no work no pay'
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vidyadhar Mishra
State of M.P. (now Chhattisgarh) And Ors.
Prashant Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
