Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal by the Chief Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court that directed payment of arrears of salary and other benefits to the respondent, Siraj Uddin Khan. The respondent was appointed as an assistant/typist and was transferred from Allahabad to Jaunpur in 2006. He was relieved on 01.02.2007 but did not join at Jaunpur, remaining unauthorizedly absent from 02.02.2007. A charge sheet was issued, and disciplinary proceedings resulted in a punishment order on 14.05.2009 reducing his basic pay by two steps. A second charge sheet for 663 days of absence was issued but not served; an ex-parte inquiry led to a termination order on 26.06.2012, after the respondent had retired on 20.06.2012. The respondent challenged both orders in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge set aside the termination order on 29.05.2015 due to non-service of charge sheet and the fact that termination occurred after retirement, but dismissed the challenge to the 14.05.2009 punishment order as barred by laches. The Division Bench, in a special appeal, set aside the 14.05.2009 order and granted consequential benefits. The respondent then filed another writ petition seeking salary from January 2007 to June 2012, which was partly allowed by the High Court, directing payment of salary from 02.02.2007 to 20.06.2012 with 18% interest. The Supreme Court limited its consideration to the period from 14.05.2009 to 20.06.2012. The appellant argued that the respondent did not work during this period and was not entitled to salary under the 'No Work No Pay' principle. The respondent contended that since the termination order was set aside, he was entitled to salary. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in directing salary for the period after 14.05.2009, as the respondent remained absent without authorization and did not work. The principle of 'No Work No Pay' applies, and the quashing of the termination order does not automatically entitle the respondent to salary for the period of absence. The appeal was allowed to the extent of setting aside the direction for payment of salary from 14.05.2009 to 20.06.2012, while the rest of the High Court's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Service Law - No Work No Pay - Salary Entitlement - General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975 - The respondent was absent from work without authorization from 02.02.2007. The punishment order dated 14.05.2009 was set aside by the Division Bench, but the respondent did not work during the period from 14.05.2009 to 20.06.2012. The Supreme Court held that the principle of 'No Work No Pay' applies, and the respondent is not entitled to salary for that period, as the quashing of the termination order does not automatically entitle him to salary without actual work. (Paras 10-12) B) Service Law - Consequential Benefits - Termination Order Set Aside - The learned Single Judge set aside the termination order dated 26.06.2012 on grounds of non-service of charge sheet and retirement before termination. However, the Supreme Court clarified that setting aside the termination order does not automatically confer a right to salary for the period of absence, especially when the employee did not work. (Paras 9-11) C) Service Law - Unauthorised Absence - Salary for Period After Punishment Order - The respondent was absent from 02.02.2007 and did not join duty. The punishment order of 14.05.2009 was quashed, but the respondent remained absent. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in directing payment of salary from 14.05.2009 to 20.06.2012, as the respondent did not work during that period. (Paras 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent was entitled to payment of salary for the period from 14.05.2009 to 20.06.2012, during which he was absent from work without authorization.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part. The direction of the High Court for payment of salary from 14.05.2009 to 20.06.2012 was set aside. The rest of the High Court's order was upheld.
Law Points
- No Work No Pay
- Consequential Benefits
- Service Law
- Unauthorised Absence
- Salary Entitlement
