Ij\LTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AI_BLLASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITIQN (S) N0.-53'^3' OF.2()_QZ 'ETITIONER A-''^fr^''' ^•^s>>" ^v -^'^^..•- A®&"" ^yw^ y ^ RESPONDENTS Smt. Madhuri Yadav Wife of Shrl S. N. Yadav, aged about 42 years, Occupation Service (Accountant), Resldent of Rajendra Nagar Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Trlbal Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). The Collector, District Bastar (C.G.). The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Devetopment, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.). 4. The Block Education Officer, Tribal Development Lohandiguda, Districl: Bastar (C.G:). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIOJM.OF INDIA »,,-oo^ ^ ^iiS^- cu^^ 3. ,Djua3=T-^=Ll-u- lfc^: ..^:.-^s HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS) N0.5953 OF 2007 PETITIONER Smt. Madhuri Yadav RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others .Sh \; Post for pronouncement ofthe orders on the 21'dav oi February, 2011 fitF^ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.5953 OF 2007 PETITIONER Smt. Madhuri Yadav RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Ashok Kumar Shukta, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. (Delivered on this 2-1" day of February, 2011) By this petition, the petitioner sought a direction to the respondent authorities to make payment of salary from the month of September, 2004 to July, 2005 and also to make payment of salary for the month ofApril, 2007. Case of the petitioner, in short, is that white the petitioner was posted as Accountant at Block-Lohandiguda, District-Bastar during the period 2004 to 2007, she was transferred to Kondagaon by order dated 13-08-2004 and thereafter, she was further transferred to Bakawand by order dated 14-10-2004. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a petition before this Court being W.P.No. 2828/2005. This Court by order dated 24-08-2005 (Annexure P/1) stayed the effect and operation of the aforesaid orders. ^' According to the petitioner, on the basis pf the interim order granted by this Court, the petitioner continued at Block- Lohandiguda. In spite of the said fact, the respondents have <s»*' »-»" "f—~ "TIU IfS y •^. (b withheld the satary of the petitioner from September, 2004 to July, 2005 and also for the month of April, 2007. The writ petition No.2828/2005 was finally disposed of by this Court by order dated 28/02/2007 (Annexure P/2). Thereafter, on 04-04-2007 (Annexure P/3) the petitioner made a representation before the respondent authorities and requested for release of her salary. However, the respondent authorities without any rhyme and reason withheld the salary of the petitioner. The petitioner has also sent a legal notice, but the same does not fructify. .Thus, this petition. Shri Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the impugned action of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary and against the service jurisprudence. Shri Shukla would further submit that the salary of the petitioner cannot be withheld, as the petitioner has rendered her services with great sincerity and honestly. On the other hand, Shri Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, on the basis ofthe return filed by the State, would submit that the petitioner had joined at Bakawand on 02-12-2004 and without any intimation or application for grant of leave, the petitioner was absent from her duties during the period 03-12-2004 to 31-12-2004. The petitioner also remained absent from her duties from 01-01-2005 to 31-01-2005, 01-02-2005 to 29-05-2004, 01-03-2005 to 31-03-2005, 01-04-2005 to 30-04-2005 and 01-05-2005 to 23-05-2005 without any further intimation or application for leave, therefore, the salary for that period was not paid to the petitioner on the principles of 'no work no pay'. Looking ^ ^- to the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. In rejoinder, Shri Shukta, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the reasons assigned by the respondents in their return about the absence of the petitioner from her duties is absolutely false and fabulous. In fact, the petitioner remained out of her duty for the reasonable period when she was contesting before the Court for adjudication of her legal rights and by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, she joined her duty at the appropriate place, which cannot be said to be negligent. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 8. The indisputable facts are that the petitioner has challenged the transfer orders dated 13-8-2004 & 14-10-2004 in writ petition (S) No.2828/2005. The interim relief staying both the orders was granted by this Court on 24-8-2005 (Annexure - P/1). There was no stay or interim order of status quo and, as such, if the petitioner has remained absent from the duty till 24-8-2005 pursuant to the transfer orders dated 13-8-2004 & 14-10-2004 the petitioner would not be entitled to any payment of salary. 9. Mere filjng the writ petition does not facilitate the petitioner to remain absent from the duty and do not follow the transfer orders passed by the authorities. Thus, on account of the fact that interim relief was granted on 24-8-2005 the petitioner is not entitled tb benefit of interim relief for the previous period, as the said order cannot be given retrospective effect. tj^,_._^.^^. :ssw. b> ^' ^. 10. Subsequently, the writ petition was dismissed as having become infructous on 28-2-2007 (Annexure - P/2). After dismissal of the petition, the petitioner should join the place of posting immediately in the month of March, 2007. tt appears that the petitioner has sent a letter to the Block Education Officer, Lohandiguda on 4-4-2007 (Annexure - P/3). However, it is not clear asto whether the petitioner has worked thereafter or not on the basis of the documents produced by the parties. 11. It is the well settled principle of law that an employee is entitled to salary only for the work the employee had performed. The Supreme Court in Gujarat Agricultural University v. All Gujarat Kamdar Karmachari Union , observed as under : "33. One of the principles wetl known in the matters of service is that if a person has worked, he must be paid and if he has not worked, he should not be paid. This is expressed in doctrine, 'no work, no pay'. Another oft repeated . principle in service jurisprudence is that if an employer has wrongly denied an employee his due then in that case he should be given full monetary benefits. But none of these principles is absolute nor can these principles be applied as a rule of thumb. Of late, the Courts have followed the principle that a person is not entitled to get something only because it would be lawful to do so." 12. In the case on hand, the petitioner was denied payment of wages from September, 2004 to Juty, 2005. The stay was granted by this Court on 24-8-2005. Thus, as clearly observed earlier that the petitioner was not entitled to payment of salary, if she remained absent from the duty without legal permission of the authorities. * (2009) 15 SCC 335 iy!* s"'°^^*^^'*'e^i*!I^^^"^^fe"ia'd?&feya'a<w'a's*E!!i!'^^ rto^CT3Ktoi h^i-'*-nQ»^^ fc 13. 14. However, the authorities may further examine asto whether the petitioner has obtained any permission legally before 24-8-2005 for remaining absent or on leave from her duties. Thereafter, in respect ofthe salary forthe month ofApril 2007 also the authorities should examine asto whether the petitioner was prevented from discharging her duties or the petitioner on her own had not worked in the month of April, 2007. If the petitioner was prevented from discharging her duties, the petitioner cannpt be denied the wages. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observations. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge »-