R P Nigam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 16667 MP

                                                             1
                            IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                           BEFORE
                                                     JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                               ON THE 9 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                              WRIT PETITION No. 9065 of 2017

                           BETWEEN:-
                           R P NIGAM S/O BAIJNATH NIGAM, AGED ABOUT 61
                           YE A R S , OCCUPATION: RETIRED UPPER DIVISION
                           TEACHER       GOVERNMENT     MIDDLE   SCHOOL,
                           HEERAPUR DIST. SAGAR SATAI ROAD, BEHIND GALLA
                           MANDI, CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI D.K. PANDEY - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION
                                 DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    COMMISSIONER PUBLIC INSTRUCTION GAUTAM
                                 NAGAR BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    DISTT. EDUCATION        OFFICER        SAGAR SAGAR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    PRINCIPAL GOVT. H. S. SCHOOL SAGAR (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI MANHAR DIXIT - PANEL LAWYER)

                                 This petition coming on orders this day, the court passed the following:
                                                               ORDER

With the consent, finally heard.

2. The petitioner initially filed this petition challenging the order dated 24.11.2016 (Annexure P/1) whereby he was made to retire on attaining the age Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 10/10/2023 5:04:27 PM

of 60 years with effect from September, 2015. The respondents filed I.A. No.9108/2020 and filed document dated 08.12.2020 wherein the District Education Officer opined that petitioner was entitled to retire on attaining the age of 62 years. However, the period between 01.11.2016 to 30.09.2017, the petitioner was treated to be on duty, but he was held to be not entitled to get the salary as per principle of "no work no pay". It is criticized by contending that petitioner was all along willing to perform his duties upto attaining the age of 62 years and respondents deprived him to perform the duty. Thus, said principle cannot be pressed into service. Reliance is placed on a Co-ordinate Bench judgment passed in W.P. No.3117/2019 (Virendra Singh Bundela Vs. State

of M.P.).

3 . Learned Panel Lawyer for the State submits that petitioner needs to challenge the order dated 08.12.2020 (Annexure R/1) to the extent petitioner was deprived from arrears of salary by invoking "no work no pay" principle.

4. No other point is pressed by the parties.

5. The singular issue involved is whether petitioner can be deprived from the fruits of salary, when indisputably he was willing to perform his duties and respondents deprived him to do so. In Union of India and others vs. K.V. Jankiraman and others, (1991) 4 SCC 109, the Apex Court opined that when an employee is willing to perform the duties and reason of deprivation is solely attributable to the department, the principle of "no wok no pay" cannot be applied. Similar view is taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in Virendra Singh Bundela (supra).

6. Apart from this, the relief claimed by the petitioner in this petition is exhaustive and while praying for setting aside the order dated 24.11.2016 (Annexure P/1) petitioner has prayed for grant of all consequential benefits. Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 10/10/2023 5:04:27 PM

Thus, hypertechnical objection raised by Government Counsel deserves to be and is accordingly rejected.

7. Petition is allowed.

8 . The respondents shall grant the benefit of arrears of pay to the petitioner from 01.11.2016 to 30.09.2017 within 90 days from the date of production of copy of this order, failing which, it will carry 8% interest till the date of actual payment.

(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE rj

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 10/10/2023 5:04:27 PM