Santan Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 4208 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Santan Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 24 June, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      L.P.A. No.239 of 2017
                             ---------

  Santan Singh                                  .....     Appellant

                             Versus

  The State of Jharkhand & Ors.                .....   Respondents
                        ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

For the Appellant : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, G.A.-V Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, A.C to G.A.-V

---------

23/Dated: 24th June, 2025

1. This appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 23.03.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.1407 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed.

2. We have gone through the entire records and found that it is a case where the principle of 'No work No pay' has been said to be made applicable. The law is even settled that the principle of 'No work No pay' will only be applicable if a particular employee has not discharged his duty on his own wish, but, when he is willing to discharge his duty and he is not allowed to do so, then in those circumstances, the principle of 'No work No pay' will not be applicable.

3. The aforesaid circumstance, has been discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vrs. K.V. Jankiraman, reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109, wherein, it has been held that although no work no pay is the normal rule, but it has got exception and it will not be applicable in a case where the employee was willing to work but had not been allowed to discharge the duty, for ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted 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."

4. Likewise, in the case of Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board Vs. C. Muddaiah reported in (2007) 7 SCC 689 it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 34 thereof which reads hereunder as :

"34. We are conscious and mindful that even in absence of statutory provision, normal rule is 'no work no pay'. In appropriate cases, however, a Court of law may, nay must, take into account all the facts in their entirety and pass an appropriate order in consonance with law. The court, in a given case, may hold that the person was willing to work but was illegally and unlawfully not allowed to do so. The court may in the circumstances, direct the authority to grant him all benefits considering 'as if he had worked'. It, therefore, cannot be contended as an absolute proposition of law that no direction of payment of consequential benefits can be granted by a Court of Law and if such directions are issued by a Court, the Authority can ignore them even if they had been finally confirmed by the Apex Court of the country (as has been done in the present case). The bald contention of the appellant Board, therefore, has no substance and must be rejected."

5. Herein it appears from the factual aspects that the writ petitioner was transferred from the office of the Block Development Officer, Itkhori Block, Chatra to the office of the District Statistical Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur on 13.05.2010.

6. It further appears from the factual aspect that he was not relieved by the concerned Block Development Officer and as such the appellant/ writ petitioner could not be able to give his joining to the transferred place of posting.

7. Further fact, which is apparent from the materials available on record that no one has come forward to take

charge from the appellant/ writ petitioner in the process of handing over and taking over charge. Since charge was not taken over, the petitioner could not join the transferred place.

8. The respondents stopped payment of his salary from the month of April 2011. The appellant/ writ petitioner made repeated requests and filed representations before the Block Development Officer and other concerned authorities requesting them to make arrangement for taking over charge from the petitioner, but no order was passed.

9. Thereafter, the appellant approached the High Court by preferring a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.7577 of 2011 seeking a direction for the disbursement of the arrear/ salary which has been stopped since April, 2011.

10. The counter affidavit was filed in the said writ petition, by taking the ground that even though he was transferred long back in the year 2010 and was relieved from the office in August, 2011, but, did not hand over the charge and did not join the transferred place. It has further been stated that since, the petitioner has been relieved from Itkhori Block, payment of salary can be made only after joining the place of transfer but the petitioner did not hand over the charge.

11. It appears from the order passed by the Co-ordinate learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.7577 of 2011 dated 21.03.2013 that the direction was passed upon the writ petitioner to report to the Block Development Officer, Itkhori Block, Chatra with the charge report. The Block Development Officer was directed to make necessary arrangement for taking over charge from the petitioner within two days from the date of handing over the report to him. The petitioner was directed to hand over the charge to the person/ officer nominated by the Block Development Officer within two days thereafter. The petitioner was also directed to join his transferred place within a week from the handing over the charge. The direction was also passed

that if the petitioner submits his joining report at the transferred place of posting within the said period, the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, shall accept his joining and take immediate steps for payment of the petitioner's arrears/ current salary with admissible allowances which was assured by the respondents before this Court.

12. It is the case of the appellant/ writ petitioner that since the respondent authorities had not complied the order dated 21.03.2013, passed in W.P.(S) No.7577 of 2011 in entirety, therefore he had preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1407 of 2014, wherein the salary for the period between 28.08.2011 to 25.04.2013 besides other allowances and interest on the aforesaid amount for the period between 01.05.2013 to 06.05.2013 with litigation cost.

13. The learned single Judge while taking into consideration serious disputed questions of fact has dismissed the said writ petition vide order dated 23.03.2017 against which the present appeal has been filed.

14. It appears from the communication dated 17.12.2016, issued under the signature of the District Statistical Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, addressed to the Director, Economics and Statistical Directorate, Jharkhand, Ranchi, wherein the entire description and background of the case of the writ petitioner in denial of the arrears of salary, has been reflected. It has particularly been referred therein that in absence of handing over and taking over, there was difficulty in release of the salary. One instance has been given that one employee whose name has been referred as Shri Vaidhya, who, without going through the process of handing over and taking over, since, has joined which was considered to be illegal joining, on the strength of self-relinquishment of the charge.

15. This Court has put a question to the learned State counsel that what was the remedy available with the petitioner, if the joining, which has been given by one Shri

Vaidhya without going through the handing over and taking over charge and when his joining in the transferred place of posting has been illegal. Since he has joined there by his self-relinquishing of the charge, then what was to be done by the writ petitioner.

16. The second question has been put by this Court that when there is a direction passed by this Court dated 21.03.2013, in W.P.(S) No.7577 of 2011, then what endeavour has been taken by the Block Development Officer, Itkhori Block, Chatra.

17. This Court has further found that once this Court has directed the Block Development Officer to ensure handing over and taking over the charge and when it was his bounding duty in compliance of the order passed by the High Court to accept the charge or to make an arrangements for accepting the charge so that the petitioner would have been relieved on the relevant date and he would have been in a position to join the transferred place of posting, but, it is not available as to whether such endeavour has been taken or not?

18. This Court, in view thereof, is of the view that the entire record, pertaining to the proceedings related to the arrears of salary, is required to be placed before this Court, and as to why it is to be construed that the principle of 'No work No pay' will be applicable.

19. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, the Block Development Officer, Itkhori Block, Chatra and the Director, Economics and Statistical Directorate, Jharkhand, Ranchi, shall remain physically present before this Court, along with the said record, on the next date of hearing.

20. Let this matter be posted on 02.07.2025.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Ravi-Chandan/-