Regular Second Appeal No.1372 of 2009 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: May 06, 2010 Rattan Lal ...Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.J.P.Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The appellant filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that he is entitled to salary, arrears and other benefits for the period from 2.8.1995 to 30.9.1997 alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of its accrual till realisation. As per the case set up by the appellant, he was Regular Second Appeal No.1372 of 2009 (O&M) : 2 : appointed to the post of Mali by Deputy Conservator of Forest on 27.6.1995. He reported for duty on 6.7.1995 at Loharu. Thereafter, he was transferred to Narnaul. His services were terminated on 2.8.1995 by Deputy Conservator of Forest SL Division, Bhiwani on the ground that the services were no longer required. Subsequently, he was again appointed as Mali at Loharu by Deputy Conservator of Forest on 22.9.1997 and was the transferred to Narnaul. It is averred that in view of the instructions issued by Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Haryana had withdrawn the office order dated 22.9.1997 and accordingly the appellant was taken back in service. When the salary for the period the appellant had remained out of job was not paid, he filed this suit. Suit was dismissed. Appeal has also been dismissed. Appellant has, therefore, filed this Regular Second Appeal. The primary submission made by the counsel for the appellant is that services of some other persons, similarly placed, were also dispensed with and they were again taken back in service like the appellant. All such employees were allowed the benefits of the period they had remained out of service. The counsel would also make reference to Annexure A-4 placed on record, whereby Deputy Forest Conservator Arravali, Narnaul has already ordered that the arrears of period from 2.8.1995 to 30.9.1997 be given to him as well. Mr.Nehra, on the basis of written instructions received by him would point out that the place where the appellant was posted subsequently, i.e., Arravali Project was wound up on 31.7.2001. Accordingly, the payments of arrears of the salary for the period the Regular Second Appeal No.1372 of 2009 (O&M) : 3 : appellant remained out of service could not be made to him. He would also submit that the appellant would not be entitled to the salary for this period on the principle of “no work no pay”. Once the similarly situated employees, whose services were terminated and upon reinstatement, they have been granted the pay and allowances for the period they had remained out of work, the same relief cannot normally be denied to the appellant. If it is so denied, it would lead to discrimination. Principle of “no work no pay” would normally have applicability only in those cases where the person is kept away from work for some fault on his part. When an employee remains available and willing to work and he is kept away from work no fault on his part, principle of “no work no pay” is generally not denied. The appellant was always willing to work and subsequently has been taken back in service. In addition, once the similarly situated employees have been allowed this benefit, denying the same to the appellant would also lead to discrimination. The substantial question of law regarding discrimination and applicability of no work, no pay would arise. To do justice between both the parties, I would consider appropriate to direct that the appellant be made a lump-sum payment of Rs.40,000/- to finally settle the dispute. Let this payment be released to the appellant within a period of three months from today. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly disposed of. May 06, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE Regular Second Appeal No.1372 of 2009 (O&M) : 4 :