IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 1569 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP.6830/2001 Dated 11/12/2003 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER -------------- K.RAVEENDRANATHAN, DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RETD.), AGED 63, S/O KITTU, HOUSE NO.6/315, METTU STREET, SEKHARIPURAM, PALAKKAD-10 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, REVENUE (D) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SRI.JIJI THOMSON, FORMER SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, REVENUE (D) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (KINFRA), NO.1, PALAKKAD. SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS FOR R1,3 & 4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 1569 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is the appellant. The short point that arises for decision in this case is, whether the appellant is entitled to get salary from 10.1.1990 to 19.11.1995 and from 8.12.1995 to 15.12.1995, the period during which he was unauthorisedly absent. 2. The petitioner, while working as Special Revenue Inspector at Palakkad, was transferred to Mannarkad on 6.1.1990. On receipt of the transfer order, he represented before the higher authorities for a proper posting. He moved the Petitions Committee of the State Legislature. Thereafter he pursued the matter before various authorities and succeeded in remaining absent, raising the claim that he was not given a posting, based on the transfer. Though disciplinary action was initiated against him, because of the inept and inefficient handling of the matter, the W.A. NO. 1569/2008 2 Government had to face contempt proceedings. In order to escape from the contempt proceedings, the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant were dropped and the contempt proceedings were thereafter closed, awarding a cost of Rs.2,000/- and also making the following observation: “7. The grievance of the petitioner has been satisfied. According to the petitioner, as per the orders of this Court, the disciplinary proceedings should have been completed within six months. That order was passed on 9.11.1998. So, by May, 1999, the proceedings should have been over. The Commissioner of Land Revenue gave a report on 6.5.1999. The show cause notice was issued on 22.5.2000. That is very much after the expiry of the period fixed by this Court. No extension is also sought for. Further, the argument of the respondent is that Rule 59(b) is a continuation of the earlier proceedings. According to us, Rule 59(b) of the Kerala Service Rules is a fresh proceeding. The Government should have been more careful in issuing Annexure VI show cause notice.” 3. Based on the said judgment, the Government passed Ext.P41 proceedings dated 30.9.2000, treating the above mentioned period of unauthorised absence as leave without allowance on personal affairs, without any service benefits including pension. The Writ Petition was W.A. NO. 1569/2008 3 filed, challenging Ext.P41 order. The learned Single disposed of the Writ Petition, holding that the appellant/petitioner is entitled to all service benefits for the above mentioned period of unauthorised absence, except salary. A Review Petition was attempted against the said judgment, which stood dismissed. Therefore, this Writ Appeal is filed, challenging the judgment to the extent it is against the appellant. 4. According to the appellant, when the Division Bench had, in Ext.P40 judgment, stated that he is entitled to get the entire pensionary benefits, including pension, gratuity etc. there is no reason why he should not be paid salary also for the period in question. We also heard the learned senior Government Pleader, who submitted that the judgment has been implemented and the appellant/petitioner has been granted all the terminal benefits. 5. Whatever be the reason, the appellant/petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent for the aforementioned period, which will come to more than five years. Because of the inefficiency of the Government, the appellant escaped from the disciplinary action and was able to collect the entire terminal benefits. Since, the appellant had not worked for the W.A. NO. 1569/2008 4 period from 10.1.1990 to 19.11.1995 and from 8.12.1995 to 15.12.1995, public money cannot be shelled out as salary for the appellant for the above period. We think, the principle of no work, no pay should be applied in this case. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the appellant that for no fault of his, he was not able to work and, therefore, he is entitled to get salary for the said period. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.A. NO. 1569/2008 5 K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.A.NO.1569/2008 JUDGMENT 15th January, 2010 W.A. NO. 1569/2008 6