Madras High Court
G.Rajan vs The Superintendent on 30 April, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.930 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.930 of 2021
G.Rajan ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai. ... Respondent/Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of
this Court made in W.P.(MD) No.13921 of 2014, dated 12.06.2019.
For Appellants : Mr.R.K.Karthick
For Respondent : Mr.K.P.Krishnadass,
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.]
Heard Mr.R.J.Karthick, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant
and Mr.K.P.Krishnadass, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.930 of 2021
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.06.2019, in
W.P(MD).No.13921 of 2014. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant
challenging the proceedings of the respondent dated 05.06.2014 and for a
consequential direction to treat the period from 29.04.2013 to 09.10.2013, as
duty for all purposes and grant him all consequential service and monetary
benefits.
3. The learned Writ Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground
that the order impugned in the writ petition was rightly passed and that the
period of absence between 29.04.2013 to 09.10.2013, was treated as ''no-work-
no-pay'' and the period to be regulated as loss of pay without medical certificate.
The petitioner had challenged the said order by contending that he had
challenged the order of transfer in W.P(MD).No.5841 of 2013 and an order of
interim stay was granted on 10.04.2013 and after receiving the order of transfer,
he reported to the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, but was not allowed to join
duty. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed on 07.10.2013, but
subsequently, posting order was not given and he made representations and
thereafter, joined on 09.10.2013 and the period between 29.04.2013 and
09.10.2013, should be treated as period of compulsory wait or in other words to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.930 of 2021
be treated as duty.
4. Further the appellant has placed reliance on the observations and
directions issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A(MD).No.1255 of 2013,
dated 16.12.2013. It was an appeal filed against the dismissal of W.P(MD).No.
5841 of 2013. The learned Writ Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground
that already a concession has been granted by treating the period as 'no-work-
no-pay' and granting further concession by treating it as a period on duty does
not arise. Under normal circumstances, we would have agreed with the learned
Writ Court in the said finding, but for the observations and directions issued by
the Hon'ble Division Bench, in an appeal filed by the appellant in
W.A(MD).No.1255 of 2013. This order binds the respondent-Department. We
say so because, the Hon'ble Division Bench by judgment dated 06.12.2013, also
dealt with the aspect, as to how the period of absence to be reckoned/regulated.
5. At this juncture, it is relevant to note the following dates and
events:
On 06.04.2013, the order of transfer was passed, which was
challenged by way of writ petition and an order of interim stay was granted on
10.04.2013. Subsequently, the writ petition was dismissed on 07.10.2013, and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.930 of 2021
the appellant was permitted to join duty on 09.10.2013. The writ appeal which
was filed was disposed of on 06.12.2013. Therefore, the period of absence
between 29.04.2013 and 09.10.2013, is roughly about 5 ½ months, which needs
to be regulated in terms of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench.
6. At this juncture, it is relevant to quote the operative portion of the
judgment:
“...Even though the petitioner has no locus to continue in the
present place of posting as the impugned order has not been set aside
and the same has been upheld by the learned Single Judge, we expect
the administration to consider in retaining him till 30.04.2014 and also
his case to give a place of posting in and around the place before the
date of impugned order of transfer. However, we are not expressing
anything on merits of matter and not issuing any direction to that effect.
If he has not joined the transferred place after the disposal of the writ
petition, we make it clear that he will not be entitled to the wages on
the principle of 'no work no pay'.
From the above directions, it is clear that the period of absence has to
be treated applying the principle 'no-work-no-pay'.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.930 of 2021
7. The respondent-Department did not get liberty from the Hon'ble
Division Bench, for further directions to regulate the period of absence. Thus,
once the Hon'ble Division Bench has dealt with the issue and held that the
period to be regulated as a period of 'no-work-no-pay', nothing further could
have been done by the respondent and therefore, the order dated 05.06.2014,
impugned in the writ petition is not sustainable, as it goes beyond the directions
issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench.
8. For the above reasons, the writ appeal is allowed and the order
passed in the writ petition is set aside. Consequently, the order impugned in the
writ petition dated 05.06.2014, is set aside and the respondent is directed to
treat the period as ordered by the Hon'ble Division Bench as 'no-work-no-pay'
and the period should not be regulated as loss of pay without medical
certificate. The above directions shall be complied with within a period of 12
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs.
Index :Yes/No (T.S.S.,J.) (S.A.I.,J.)
Internet :Yes/No 30.04.2021
pkn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.930 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
S.ANANTHI, J.
pkn
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy
of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall
be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To,
The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai.
W.A.(MD)No.930 of 2021
30.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
