IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.449 of 2008 ------ 1. The Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur through the Registrar, T.M.B.University, Bhagalpur. 2. The Vice Chancellor, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, Post-Bhagalpur, District- Bhagalpur. 3. The Registrar, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, Post-Bhagalpur, District-Bhagalpur. Respondents - Appellants Versus 1. Ranjit Prasad son of Sri Rudra Prasad at present working as a Laboratory Incharge, Department of Physics, T.N.B.College, Bhagalpur, P.S. –University Campus in the District of Bhagalpur. .. Petitioner-Respondent (Ist Set) 2. The Principal, T.N.B. College, Bhagalpur, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. Respondent-Respondent 2nd Set. ----------- For the appellants : Mr.Ashok Kumar Keshari, Advocate For the respondent no.1 : Mr. Shivaji Pandey, Senior Advocate Mr. Braj Nandan Tiwary, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------ Dated, the 23rd September, 2008 Appeal is admitted. 2. Mr. Braj Nandan Tiwary, advocate, waives services for respondent no.1. Service on respondent no.2 is dispensed with being a formal party. 3. Keeping in view the controversy raised in the appeal, we - 2 - deem it fit to dispose of appeal at this stage itself. 4. The controversy in this appeal is confined to the claim of the respondent no.1 in respect of payment of wages during the period from 28th March, 1998 to 19th June, 2005 while he was under suspension. 5. That the respondent no.1 was appointed on daily wages on 28th July, 1988 as Laboratory Incharge in the Department of Physics of the first appellant-University is not in dispute. He continued to be on daily wages is an admitted position. No order of his regularization in service as a permanent employee came to be issued. He was suspended on 28th March, 1998. He filed a writ petition being CWJC No.3425/2000 challenging the order of suspension. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by this court on 12th April, 2005. The order dated 12th April, 2005 reads thus: “ The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order dated 28.3.98, Annexure-1, whereby the petitioner has been suspended. The petitioner was Lab Incharge in the Department of Physics in T.N.B.College, Bhagalpur at the relevant time. He was put under suspension on the ground of dereliction of duty. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to para 12 of the petition wherein it has been stated that vide office order dated 28-29/4/98 issued by the Registrar of the University the suspension of the petitioner was approved with request to the Principal to ask explanation from him regarding allegation leveled against him and for initiating departmental proceeding but neither explanation was asked from the petitioner nor departmental proceeding was initiated till date. Although the petitioner has been attending Head office since the date of his suspension, subsistence allowance also has not been paid to him till date. The writ petition was filed on 20.4.2000 but no counter affidavit has been - 3 - filed as yet. However, counsel for the respondents says that the petitioner was a daily wager but no document in support of the submission was produced before the Court. It appears from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was suspended on 28.3.98 vide Annexure-1. There is a clear- cut statement in the writ petition that no proceeding has been initiated against him, though he has been attending the Headquarters regularly. Even if it is accepted that the petitioner was a daily wager then also the order, Annexure-1 cannot be held to be legal as daily wager is not required to be suspended. He can be disengaged or for any criminal action a criminal case can be initiated. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, stated that the submission of the counsel for the respondents is without any foundation. Further it appears that the order of suspension has been passed in the month of March 1998, i.e. about seven years ago. Keeping an employee under suspension for such a long time is neither in the interest of the employee nor the employer because if the charge is not established against the said employee he will be entitled to all monetary benefits without any work. Furthermore, an employee can be suspended in contemplation of a departmental proceeding but the order does not speak so. Therefore, in any view of the matter, the order of suspension cannot be said to be legal. Thus, on consideration as discussed above, this writ petition is allowed, the order, Annexure-1 is hereby quashed. If any proceeding is pending against the petitioner, the same will continue and will be disposed of expeditiously.” 6. The respondent no.1, then, made a representation to the appellant no.1 for payment of his wages for the period from 28th March, 1998 to 19th June, 2005. According to him a sum of Rs.1,13,000/- was payable to him by the appellant no.1. Since the appellant no.1 did not make any payment to him, he approached this court again by filing writ petition being CWJC No.13324 of 2006. 7. The stand of the appellants before the single judge was - 4 - that the respondent no.1 was not entitled to any remuneration for the period 28th March, 1998 to 19th June, 2005 as he was on daily wages and no work was taken from the petitioner during this period. 8. The single judge held that the present respondent no.1 (original petitioner) was an ad hoc employee; the University stopped him from working and the University cannot take advantage of that action and deprive the petitioner of his legitimate dues. 9. It is from this order that present appeal has been preferred by the University. 10. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the liberty granted by this court in the order dated 12th April, 2005, the disciplinary inquiry against the respondent no.1 was concluded and upon receipt of the inquiry report, the Vice Chancellor passed an order of punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and censure. There is nothing on record that the order of punishment has been challenged by the respondent no.1. Whatever be the claim of the respondent no.1 with regard to his status, the fact of the matter is that all along he continued as daily wager. His status never got altered. By suspension or disciplinary action, his status cannot be assumed to have changed. If during the period of suspension i.e., for the period from 28th March, 1998 to 19th June, 2005, the respondent no.1 did not work, he is not entitled to any wages for that period applying the principle of „no work, no pay.‟ 11. Appeal is, accordingly, allowed in part and the order - 5 - passed by the single judge to the extent the appellants have been directed to pay to the respondent no.1, the wages during the period from 28th March, 1998 to 19th June, 2005 is quashed and set aside. No order as to costs. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil