Satish Kumar Kannoje Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Satish Kumar Kannoje Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal dismissed as devoid of merit; no order as to costs. Observation recorded that if the appellant submits an application/representation pursuant to the liberty granted by the learned Single Judge (for treating the disputed period as leave), the competent authority shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with the applicable service rules and the directions contained in the impugned order, without being influenced by any observations made in this judgment.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant is entitled to salary for the period from 22.07.2025 to 21.10.2025, during which he admittedly did not discharge any official duties (sole issue identified by the Division Bench).

Court's answer

Merely because the transfer order dated 21.07.2025 was under challenge before this Court did not, by itself, confer on the appellant a right to claim salary for the period during which no work was performed; until the interim order dated 16.10.2025 was passed there was no order protecting his continuance at Chuikhadan.

Ratio / Principle

The learned Single Judge rightly applied the principle of 'No Work No Pay', the appellant having been relieved on 21.07.2025 and having neither joined at Rajnandgaon nor discharged any duties till 21.10.2025; there is no error in the appreciation of facts or in the application of that principle warranting interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

Key takeaways

The direction/liberty granted by the learned Single Judge permitting the appellant to seek treatment of the period 22.07.2025 to 21.10.2025 as leave (if otherwise entitled under applicable service rules), to be considered and decided by the competent authority expeditiously preferably within two months, adequately safeguards the appellant's interest.ratio¶49
Upon consideration of rival submissions and record, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge suffers from no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference in the present writ appeal.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Division Bench: Ramesh Sinha, CJ, author; Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J) dismisses Writ Appeal No. 541 of 2026 and affirms the Single Judge's denial of salary for 22.07.2025 to 21.10.2025 under the 'No Work No Pay' principle. The appellant-clerk, transferred twice within twenty days (Raipur to Chuikhadan by order dated 30.06.2025; Chuikhadan to Rajnandgaon by order dated 21.07.2025) and relieved on 21.07.2025, admittedly neither joined at Rajnandgaon nor discharged any duties until the interim order dated 16.10.2025 stayed the second transfer and he rejoined at Chuikhadan on 22.10.2025. The Division Bench holds that mere pendency of the challenge to the transfer order conferred no right to salary in the absence of any protective order, and endorses the Single Judge's balancing direction granting liberty to seek treatment of the disputed period as leave, to be decided by the competent authority per service rules (preferably within two months). No costs.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 06.04.2026 of the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 12982 of 2025 (Satish Kumar Kannoje vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) dismissing the appellant's writ petition, which the appellant challenged by the present intra-Court appeal.¶22
High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Single Judge) · 06.04.2026
Prior proceeding
Appellant initially appointed as Assistant Grade-III (Clerk) in the Water Resources Department; by order dated 13.08.2019 transferred from Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, to the office of the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Raipur, where he served about six years without complaint.¶23
Prior proceeding
On personal/family grounds (76-year-old mother and unmarried brother of unsound mind wholly dependent on him; middle-class hardship at Raipur; sanctioned vacant post available at Chuikhadan near native place), the appellant submitted a representation dated 09.06.2025 before respondent No. 1.¶23
Prior proceeding
Accepting the request, respondent No. 1 issued a transfer order dated 30.06.2025 moving the appellant from Raipur to Chuikhadan, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai.¶26
Prior proceeding
Appellant relieved from Raipur on 04.07.2025 and joined duty at Chuikhadan on 11.07.2025.¶26
Prior proceeding
Within about twenty days of the first transfer and ten days after joining at Chuikhadan, respondent No. 1 issued a second transfer order dated 21.07.2025 moving the appellant from Chuikhadan to Rajnandgaon, contended to have been abrupt, reasonless and without hearing.¶26
Prior proceeding
Aggrieved by the second transfer order, the appellant filed a writ petition; by order dated 31.07.2025 the High Court directed him to submit a fresh representation and the competent authority to decide the same within two weeks.¶27
Prior proceeding
Despite the Court's direction the representation was not decided within the stipulated period; after the appellant initiated contempt proceedings, the representation was rejected on 26.09.2025.¶29
Prior proceeding
Appellant filed a further writ petition, wherein by interim order dated 16.10.2025 the learned Single Judge stayed the operation of the transfer order dated 21.07.2025 and permitted the appellant to join at Chuikhadan even if already relieved.¶29
Prior proceeding
Despite the interim protection the respondents failed to release the appellant's salary for several months, compelling him to file another writ petition regarding salary.¶30
Prior proceeding
Although the State assured the Court of release of salary, only part salary was paid (01.07.2025 to 21.07.2025 and 22.10.2025 to 31.10.2025); the remainder continued to be withheld despite repeated representations and departmental communications.¶30
Prior proceeding
The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, found the appellant had not worked from 22.07.2025 to 21.10.2025 after being relieved on 21.07.2025 and denied salary for that period by applying the principle of 'No Work No Pay'.¶30
Prior proceeding
Admitted factual position: pursuant to the transfer order dated 21.07.2025 the appellant was relieved from Chuikhadan the same day and did not join at Rajnandgaon; pursuant to the interim order dated 16.10.2025 he resumed duties at Chuikhadan only on 22.10.2025.¶41
Prior proceeding
While declining the salary claim, the learned Single Judge granted liberty to apply to the competent authority for treating the period 22.07.2025 to 21.10.2025 as leave if otherwise entitled under applicable service rules, with the application to be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably within two months of receipt.¶47