Orissa High Court
Paramananda Nayak vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 31 January, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.30418 of 2024
Paramananda Nayak ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv.
- Prasanta Kumar
Mohanty (2)
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
31.01.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties.
Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed
thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"The petitioner, therefore, prayed that this
Hon'ble court would graciously be pleased to
issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to
show cause as to why the order dated 12.05.2021
vide Annexure-11 shall not be quashed relating
'no work no pay and as to why they shall not be
directed to release the salary of the petitioner
w.e.f. 01.06.2019 to 12.01.2020 within a
stipulated period;
If the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show
insufficient cause, the said Rule be made
absolute;
And/or pass any other order/orders as this
Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case;"
4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
Petitioner was working in WALMI under the Opposite Party No.2 as
a Heavy Vehicle Driver. He further contended that the Petitioner was
supposed to retire from service on attaining the age of
superannuation, i.e. 58 years, which was the age of retirement at the
relevant point of time. However, while the Petitioner was working,
the age of retirement was enhanced to 60 years. Thereafter, the
Petitioner was allowed to continue up to 60 years. On attaining the
age of superannuation, i.e. on reaching the age of 60 years, the
Petitioner has retired from service. Learned counsel for the Petitioner
further contended that the Petitioner has not received the salary for
the period starting from the date he was permitted to continue up to
60 years to the date of his retirement after attaining the age of 60
years, i.e. from 01.06.2019 to 12.01.2020. He further contended that
the Opposite Parties have rejected the claim of the Petitioner by
holding that the Petitioner has not worked for the said year, therefore,
by applying the principles of No Work No Pay, the Petitioner is not
entitled to get the benefit.
5. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner
referred to the judgment of this Court by a Coordinate Bench in
Janaki Ballav Mohanty v. Principal Secretary to Govt. and others
in W.P.(C) No.27906 of 2019 and a batch of similar other matters
disposed of on 14.07.2023. By referring to the aforesaid judgment,
learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Coordinate
Bench has categorically held that the principle of No Work No Pay is
not applicable to the facts of that case which is similar to the facts of
the case of the present Petitioner. He also referred to the judgment of
this Court in Premalata Panda v. State of Odisha and another
reported in 2015(II) OLR 214 as well as in State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Dayananda Chakrabarty reported in AIR 2013 SC 3066. Learned
counsel for the Petitioner further referred to another judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in NOIDA and others v. B.D. Singhal and
others reported in AIR 2021 SC 3457. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner has already
approached the Opposite Parties by filing a representation dated
05.07.2021, with a prayer to pay the salary for the aforesaid period.
However, no decision on the said representation has been taken by
the Opposite Party No.1. Being aggrieved by such inaction the
Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ
petition.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand
contended that the present writ petition is not maintainable. He
further contended that the Opposite Parties, by applying the
principles of No Work No Pay, have denied the salary of the
Petitioner for the period during which the Petitioner has not worked
under the Opposite Party No.2. Therefore, Learned Additional
Government Advocate contended, that the Opposite Parties have not
committed any illegality in denying the salary to the present
Petitioner. Additionally, it was also submitted that since the
Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 by
filing a representation. Therefore, in the event the same is still
pending for consideration, he shall have no objection in the event this
Court directs the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 consider the same in
accordance with law and within a stipulated period of time.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties, on a careful examination of the materials on record as well as
the submissions made by the learned counsels, further keeping in
view the factual backgrounds of the present case, this Court deems it
proper to dispose of the present writ application by granting liberty to
the Petitioner to file a fresh and detailed representation taking therein
all the grounds, along with all relevant judgments in support of his
contention, within a period of three weeks from today, before the
Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party
Nos.1 & 2 shall do well to consider the representation in accordance
with law by keeping in view the principles laid down by this Court as
well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court and dispose of the representation
by passing a speaking and reasoned order within eight weeks from
the date of taking such decision on the representation. The final
decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within two
weeks thereafter.
8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application
stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
