HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, 3ILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVAJ. V‘NKY‘ Writ Petition (S) No.3 103/2005 PETITIONER S. L. Yadav Versus RESPONDENTS State of M.P. (now CG.) and another O R D E R POST ON I—‘fJULY 2010 Sdl— ;Manindra M0ha“ shrivastava Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI MANINDRA MORAN $HRIVASTAVA,J. Writ Petition IS) No.3103l2005 PETITIONER S. L. Ya<iav Versus RESPONDENTS State of M.P. (now CG.) and another Apyearance: Mr. S.L. Yadav , peu'tioner in person. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State] respondents. O R D E R. (Passed on 15 .0720 10) 1. A short question for consideration arises in this petition. Brief facts, necessmy for decision of the case are, that the petitioner was initially appointed in a private school namely- Matrasadan Higher Secondary School, Mandir Hasoud, Raipur. While he was working in that school, the same was taken over by the Government w.e.f. 31.12.1996. § Petitioner was initially not absorbed in Government service, but, later on, an order was passed on 16.4.1999 (Annexure A-7) by which his services were observed as Assistant Teacher. Earlier, a petition was flled by the petitioner along with other aggrieved teachers before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, claiming payment of salary for a period of 13 months and an order was passed by the Tribunal on 2.1.1999 in O.A. No.81] 1998 (Annexure A-2), directing payment of salary for the said period of 13 months. The order of absorption of the petitioner was passed on 16.4.1999 after the order of the Tlibunal. Petit‘oner then raised his claim for grant of salary in respect of the period from 9.6.1998 to 18.4. 1999. During this period, petitioner was not working, as initially, he was not absorbed, and therefore, his services were disconu'nued w.e.f. 8.6. 1998. It was only after his absorpu'on vide order dated 16.4. 1999 (Annexure P—7) that he started discharging his duty. . The petitioner, who appeared in person, submitted that though initially he was not absorbed, later on, vide order dated 16.4.1999 (Annexure P~ 7), his services were absorbed on the post of Assistant Teacher. It is submitted that the he was a permanent employee of the erstwhile private school, which was taken over by the, Government w.e.f. 31.12.1996. Once he is found entitled for absorption, the entire intervening period ought to be taken into consideration for the purpose of grant of salary and he could not be deprived of his salary by applying the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, as the petitioner was illegally deprived to work during the period hum 9th June 1998 to March, 1999. ,v . On the other hand, submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that initially when the school was taken over by the Government, the case of the pétitiouer was considered and he was not found eligible for absorption, which is clean hom order dated 8.6.1998. Later on, the case of the petitioner was sympathetically considered and he was absorbed on the post of Assistant Teacher vide order dated 16.4. 1999 (Annexure A-7). As the petitioner did not work during‘the period hom 8.6.1998 till the absorption order dated 16.4.1999, petitioner is not entitled for salary for the period of 10 months from 8.6. 1998 till March, 1999, on the application of principle of “no work and no pay” . 4. I have considered the rival contcn’tions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. It is not in dispute that while the petitioner was working as Teacher in the School, the Same was taken over in the year 1996. True it is that the peu‘u‘oner was initially not absorbed in senzice, but, later on, an order was passed on 16.4. 1999 (Annexuie A-7) by which, the petitioner was absorbed in View of approval granted on 8.3. 1999 by the Director, Public Instructions, Madhya Pradesh. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that though after some time, nnally, the petitioner was held entitled for absorption on the post of Assistant Teacher in Government School. The order of absorption of the petitioner does not show that the petitioner was absorbed in Government service by taking any compassionate view of the matter. 6. It is thus Clear that had a proper decision been taken earlier in the case of the peh'tioner, occasion for dismntinuance in sewice during the petiod from 8.6.1998 till March, 1999, would not have an'senln these ciieumstances, particularly, when the petitioner has been finally absorbed, it would be unjust and unfair to deprive the petitioner of his salaiy in respect of period from 8.6.1998 till march, 1999 i.e. 10 months. Absorption in Government service upon taking over the school s entitles the petitionerto continuance of his service in the absence of there being any order to the contrary in the absorption Order dated 16.4.1999 (Annexure P-7). It is not a case that though thewpétiu'oner was absorbed; he of his own volition did not attend the duties. It is apparent that because of the action of the respondents, petitioner could not discharge duties of r / the post of Assistant Teacher. In such a situation, where the peu’tioner was wrongfully deprived of his right to work on the post of Assistant Teacher, principle of “no work 1'10 pay” has no application and the petitioner could not be deprived of his salary for the intervening period. In the case of Union of India & 01's. Vs. K. V. Jankiraman as Ors. M (AIR 1991 SC 201g), it has been held by the Supreme Court that Rule of “No Work No Pay” is not applicable to cases where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away dom the work by the authority without his fault. . In the result, the petition is allowed. Petitioner is entitled to salary for the period of 10 months i.e. 8.6.1998 uptill March, 1999 i.e, 10 months, as claimed in the petition. The aforesaid salary shall now be paid to the petitioner alongwith‘interest @ 6% payable from the date of tiling of the petition till the date of payment. if Sd/- .Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge . No order as to costs. Prawen