The "no work-no pay" principle does not apply to Uttar Pradesh government employees who are reinstated after being fully exonerated, cites the Allahabad High Court in a ruling.
The court's decision came in response to a writ petition filed by Dinesh Prasad, who was a member of the Uttar Pradesh Police. Justice Salil Kumar Rai ruled that according to Rule 54 of the Financial Handbook Volume II (Part II to IV), a dismissed employee who is fully exonerated from all charges is entitled to full pay for the period of dismissal once they are reinstated. The court held that the period of dismissal should be treated as a period of duty in service.
"It is apparent that on his reinstatement after the order of dismissal or removal is set aside, a government servant cannot be denied his entire pay and allowances for the period he was out of service," the court said on Tuesday, allowing the petition.
The court held that the quantum of the amount which is payable to such employee will depend upon the nature of exoneration from the charges. It was held that the only situation in which the pay to such an employee can be denied is if he was in employment for the period he was out of service, and was earning more or equivalent to the amount he is entitled to.
The petitioner was with the Uttar Pradesh Police. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991 where a charge sheet was issued against him alleging unauthorized leave of two days, hunger strike affecting the reputation of the police force.
In an inquiry, the petitioner was held guilty of all charges levelled against him. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and subsequently, he was dismissed from service.
The petitioner filed an appeal against the termination order. The appellate authority exonerated the petitioner of charges levelled against and he was consequently reinstated in service.
Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Rule 73 of the Financial Handbook Volume-II Part II to IV as to why his services for the period the petitioner was out of service i.e., between January 9, 2020, to September 29, 2020, be not regularised without payment of salary on the principle of 'no work no pay'. The said period was the period between his termination and the order of the appellate authority.
The petitioner challenged the said order before the high court. The court in its decision dated July 16 allowed the writ petition and directed the registrar (compliance) to send a copy of this order to SP, Deoria for compliance.
Follow us
