1N THE M P ADMxmsTRATxVE TRmUNAL‘ BENCH RAxPug, OoAJ‘TO. Egg Am’umm g Dr. Rm. Divya s/o Late P.R.Divya, aged about 40 Yaars,“ Asstt. Surgeon Govt. 100 Beded Hospita1, Korba, Distt‘. Korba UMP.) z!’ VERSUS / RESPQNDEN£§ : 1’State of Madhya Pradesh, through Principal Secretary, Fublic Hea1th & Family Weu‘ara Department , Vallabh Bhawan, Eh opal a 2/ Chieaf Medical Off-mar & Health Off icer, B11 stspur ., 3/ chief Medusa Officer as ‘1ea1tb off icer Korba 4 /Block Medical Officer, Primary E19511“: Cantre, $ Korbaa /39 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR ‘ ‘Single' Bench: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. W. P. [8’ No. 3151 of 2005 Shri Sameer Behar, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel lawyer for the respondents. ORDER (28th August, 2006) 1. The petitioner Was appointed as Assistant Surgeon at the 100 bedded hospital, at Korba. Vida order dated 3.12.1996 (Annexure A/ 1) he was transferred to the Pn‘mary Health Center, Lemma, District- Korba. Being aggn'eved the petitioner impugned the said transfer order dated 3.12.1996 by tiling Original Application No. 483f97 befote the State Administtative Tribunal, Jabalpur. Learned Tribunal by its order dated. 6.2.1998 (Annexure A/ 2) quashed the impugned transfer order. Widiivregard to the question of payment of salary it 5 was observed that the same would be decided by the competent authority within one month of the tiling of the certitied copy of the said order. 2. The respondent No. 1 pursuant to the order dated 6.2. 1998 passed by the Tribunal, declined to make payment of the salary from 10.12.1996 to 15.2.1998 on the principle ‘No work, no pay’, vide order dated 29.1.1999 (AnnexrneA[9). The petitioner has tiled this petition impugning the order dated 29. 1.1999. Petitioner Dr. R. K. Divya Versus ' Respondent : State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) and others DL‘o 3. On perusal of the: papers, it appears that the impugned order dated 29.1.1999 was passed without application of mind. The principle of ‘No work, no pay’ is applicable when the petitioner remained absent fmm duty, voluntarily. But in the case whme the employee is msirained from working, tho said principle. would not he. applicable. In the pmsont case, it appears that pursuant to the. impugned, transfer Older, which was later on quashed. by the Tribunal, the petitioner was restrained from working. The tmnsfer order dated. 3. 12. 199§ became non-est. on the. ground that. the same was quashed by tho Tn'bunal in O.A.No.483/97, vide order dated. 6.2. 1998. Thus, the petitioner cannot be denied the salaxy on the principle of ‘No work, no pay’. However, keeping in View the fact that the petitioner remained out of work, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for payment. of hack wages, keeping in View the financial position and other considerations. 5. Accordingly, the order dated 29.1.1999 is quashed. The’tespondents may further consider to grant payment of interest also on. the unpaid salary, for which the petitioner has to tile this petition in this Court. Needful should be done by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt. of a copy of this order, in accordance x with law. 6. The. petition is allowed to the above extent. No order as to costs. Ld/n ‘4 sax- ‘. Satish K. Agnihotri f i xi Judge 13, ‘ l v.7 . 1