The High Court of Madras dismissed an appeal against an order denying an employee suspended/dismissed certain incidental benefits under the no work no pay principle.
No relief granted; the appellant was not entitled to the claimed benefits due to 'no work no pay' principle.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.11.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.No.874 of 2013
R.Natarajan .. Appellant
-vs-
1.The Director General
Central Industrial Security Force,
Block No.13, C.G.O's Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003.
2.The Inspector General,
CISF, CISF Office Complex,
Boring Road, Patlipthra,
Patna 800 013.
3.The Deputy Inspector General,
Central Industsrial Security Force,
HQ. CCL., Kargali, Jharkhand.
4.The Commandant, CIST Unit,
CCL., Kargali, Bokare,
Jharkhand. .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 07.03.2013 passed in W.P.No.11075 of 2012 on the file of this Court.
W.P.No.11075 of 2012:-
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dt.15.10.2011 and to pay all benefits for the period from 14.12.97 to 31.03.2010 as per the order of the Honourable Supreme Court dated 25.07.2011 and the order of the 3rd respondent dated 02.09.2011
For Appellant : Mr.A.R.Mujibur Rahman For Respondents : Mr.Venkataswamy Babu, Spl. Panel Counsel, for RR 1 to 4
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
The matter lies in a very narrow compass. This is with respect to the incidental entitlement which the appellant claims by way of Child Education Allowance, Bonus, Leave Encashment, ACP and MACP.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant is entitled for these payments. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the appellant was paid the increment and 75% of the salary for the period in which he did not work admittedly as he was suffering from punishment of dismissal.
3.The appellant, in our considered view, is not entitled for the claim made. The Apex Court has merely stated that the appellant is entitled for 75% of the salary. The Division Bench of this Court has said that the principle of 'no work no pay' will have no application and therefore, the respondents are bound to pay the arrears of salary. Therefore, the order will have to be understood with respect to the salary alone. When we speak about the salary, it takes in its ambit the entitlement of increment also. Now, increment has been paid to the appellant. Though the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is not clear as to whether increment is paid, the very claim of the appellant is itself for the other entitlement, such as bonus, leave encashment, etc. The said claim, as discussed above, the appellant is not entitled to, having not worked during the relevant period.
Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IX)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sra
To
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an employee under suspension/dismissal is entitled to Child Education Allowance, Bonus, Leave Encashment, ACP, and MACP.
Whether the 'no work no pay' principle applies to incidental entitlements during a period of punishment.
R.Natarajan
The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force
M.M.SUNDRESH
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
