IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1954 of 2008 Date of Decision: 3.10.2008 Jasmer Singh …..Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and others …..Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla. Present: Mr. K.L. Dhingra, Advocate for the appellant. Rajive Bhalla, J. The appellant challenges the judgments and decrees, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala, dated 2.12.2005 and District Judge, Ambala, dated 16.01.2008, rejecting his prayer for payment of interest for the period 4.06.2001 to 20.09.2002 and dismissing his appeal by modifying the judgment of the trial court to the extent that the period of absence would be considered for continuity in service but he would not be entitled to any pay and allowances for the said period respectively. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration praying for grant of full salary and allowances for the period from 4-06-2001 to 20-09-2002 along with increments and other service benefits and interest @ 18% on the plea that he was not allowed to work for this period for no fault or error on his part. The appellant filed an application for voluntary retirement assuming that he had completed 20 years of qualifying service. His request for voluntary retirement dated 29th April, 2001 was accepted and the appellant was retired from service w.e.f. 4.06.2001. He completed his pension papers and submitted them to the department who forwarded the same to the office of Accountant General, Haryana. The Accountant General, Haryana pointed out to the department its mistake in allowing the RSA No.1954 of 2008 -2- appellant to retire voluntarily though he had not completed 20 years of qualifying service. As a result the appellant rejoined service on 20.09.2002. As the appellant was prevented from working from 4.06.2001 to 20.09.2002 for no fault on his part, he filed a suit praying that the period of absence be treated as a period spent on duty and the respondents be directed to pay the salary and allowances for the period from 4.06.2001 to 29.09.2002. The respondents opposed the prayer, made in the suit by asserting that as the appellant had not worked for this period, he could not be paid any relief. The learned trial court after considering the merits of the case, decreed the suit by holding that as the plaintiff-appellant has submitted an application for voluntary retirement and as the entire record was available with the respondent No.2 the fault if any lay with the respondents, and therefore, the appellant could not be deprived of his legitimate right to receive remuneration and would be entitled to consider the period of absence as a period spent on duty. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the appellant and the respondents filed separate appeals. The District Judge, Ambala, affirmed the findings returned by the trial court and dismissed the appeal but modified the judgment of the trial court to the extent that the period of absence would be considered for continuity in service but the appellant would not be entitled to any pay and allowances for the said period. Counsel for the appellant submits that even if the appellant committed an error in submitting an application for voluntary retirement without fulfilling the qualifying period of service, the respondents were equally responsible for this error as they accepted the appellant’s application without pointing out any defect. The appellant, therefore, would be entitled to receive salary for this period as the error by the respondents RSA No.1954 of 2008 -3- deprived him of his work and salary. I have heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments. Admittedly, the appellant submitted an application for voluntary retirement and he was retired on 4th of June, 2001. The error in accepting his prayer for voluntary retirement was discovered by the Accountant general, Haryana. The appellant thereafter resumed work only on 20th of September, 2002. The appellant's claim for wages for the period of absence was rightly rejected by the first appellate court. The appellant retired voluntarily and thereafter on discovery of an error applied for withdrawal of the order of voluntary retirement, which was granted. The appellant should have been vigilant about his rights and about calculating his qualifying service, before filing the application for voluntary retirement. As he admittedly did not work during the relevant period, the principle of ‘No Pay for No Work’, would in my considered opinion apply to the present case. The appellant’s claim for wages during his absence i.e. period from 4th June, 2001 to 20th September, 2002, was, therefore, rightly rejected by the courts below. As the impugned judgments and decrees do not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law and as no question of law much-less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed. 3.10.2008 (Rajive Bhalla) sk Judge