Punjab-Haryana High CourtConstable Major Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 19 September, 2022Author:Jaishree ThakurBench:Jaishree ThakurCWP No. 1756 of 2019                                                       1\n\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                     CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                         CWP No. 1756 of 2019 (O&M)\n                         Reserved on September 1, 2022\n                         Date of Pronouncement: September 19, 2022\n\n\nConstable Major Singh\n                                                           ...Petitioner\n                                   Versus\n\nState of Punjab and others\n                                                           ...Respondents\n\nCORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR\n\nPresent:-   Mr. Dheeraj Chawla, Advocate\n            for the petitioner.\n\n            Mr. APS Tung, DAG, Punjab.\n\nJAISHREE THAKUR, J.1.          The petitioner herein by way of instant writ petition seeks\n\nquashing of the impugned order dated 31.8.2017 (Annexure P/3) and\n\nsubsequent order dated 19.9.2017(Annexure P/4) passed by respondent No.\n\n3, whereby the post dismissal period from 31.12.1992 to 13.3.2017 has been\n\ntreated as 'No Work No Pay' period, with a further prayer to set aside the\n\norder dated 21.9.2018 (Annexure P/6)) whereby the appeal preferred by the\n\npetitioner against both the orders has been rejected.2.          The facts in brief giving rise to the present writ petition are that\n\nthe petitioner was appointed as Constable on 26.5.1990 on permanent basis\n\nand was allotted No. 2729-TT. It is averred that he was blessed with a son,\n\nwho fell ill at the time of his birth and therefore, he had to suddenly go to\n\nhis home to attend his ailing son and accordingly he informed his superiors\n\n\n\n\n                                     1 of 18::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:39 :::CWP No. 1756 of 2019                                                  2in this regard. Unfortunately his son did not survive. However, to his utter\n\nsurprise, his leave was not sanctioned and he was treated as absent from\n\nduty from 26.9.1992 to 16.10.1992 (20 days), 25.10.1992 to 28.10.1992 (3\n\ndays), 9.11.1992 to 16.11.1992 (7 days) and 21.11.1992 to 28.11.1992 (7\n\ndays), vide order Book No. 1123/92 and while invokingArticle 311 (2)of\n\nthe Constitution of India, respondent No.3, dismissed him from service\n\nwithout holding any inquiry, vide order dated 31.12.1992. The main basis\n\nfor dismissal from service was that the petitioner had close links with\n\nextremists and he was helping them by providing information of the police\n\ndepartment. Aggrieved against the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed\n\nCivil Writ Petition No. 6406 of 1994 in this Court, which was allowed on\n\n16.12.2016. However, the respondents were given liberty to hold a\n\ndepartmental inquiry against the petitioner by affording him reasonable\n\nopportunity of being heard.In compliance with the order dated 16.12.2016, the petitioner\n\nwas reinstated on 13.3.2017, subject to outcome of the fresh departmental\n\ninquiry. During the regular departmental inquiry, the charges of having\n\nlinks of the petitioner with the terrorists and leakage of information was not\n\nproved but the absence from duty from 21.11.1992 to 28.11.1992 was\n\nproved and as such the respondent No.3, passed the impugned order dated\n\n31.8.2017 (Annexure /3). Relevant portion of the said order reads as under:-"One (1) year of approved service be forfeited permanently for\n            pay/promotion and effect of which will be on his future pay\n            fixation/promotion. His absence from duty w.e.f. 21.11.1992 to\n            28.11.1992 in total 7 days is ordered to be treated as "No\n\n\n\n\n                                     2 of 18::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 :::CWP No. 1756 of 2019                                                 3Work No Pay" and the period after his dismissal is also\n            ordered to be treated as "No Work No Pay" for the reason that\n            he has not rendered any Government Duty during this span of\n            time.Apart from that, as per his record, his absence from duty\n            period prior to dismissal i.e. 26.9.1992 to 16.10.1992 (20\n            days), 25.10.1992 to 28.10.1992 (3 days) vide order book No.\n            1123/92 and 09.11.1992 to 16.11.1992 (7 days), has already\n            been treated as 'No Work No Pay'."3.          Apart from the above period of absence for which the petitioner\n\nwas penalized by treating the same as 'No Work No Pay' period, respondent\n\nNo.3, vide order dated 19.9.2017 (Annexure P/4), ordered that the period\n\npost dismissal i.e. from 31.12.1992 till 13.3.2017 (when he was reinstated),\n\ntotal 24 years 2 month and 14 days, be treated as 'No Work No Pay' on the\n\nground that the petitioner had not rendered any government duty and re-\n\nfixed his pay accordingly.Aggrieved against the orders dated 31.8.2017 and 19.9.2017,\n\nthe petitioner filed an appeal/supplementary appeal before the Inspector\n\nGeneral of Police, Border Range, Amritsar, but the same was rejected, vide\n\norder dated 21.9.2018. Hence the present writ petition.4.          Learned counsel for the petitioner herein would vehemently\n\nargue that the impugned orders dated 31.8.2017 and 19.9.2017 are\n\nabsolutely illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is\n\nsubmitted that once the dismissal order had been quashed by this Court,\n\nthen the question of treating the post dismissal period from 31.12.1992 till\n\n13.3.2017 as 'No Work No Pay' period on the ground that the petitioner did\n\n\n\n\n                                       3 of 18::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 :::CWP No. 1756 of 2019                                                 4not render any government duty, does not arise and the same is arbitrary and\n\ncannot be sustained. Learned counsel would rely on Rule 7.3 of the Punjab\n\nCivil Services Rules, Vol. I, Part I, Chapter VII to contend that once a\n\ngovernment employee who has been dismissed, removed, compulsorily\n\nretired or suspended, is reinstated upon having been fully exonerated, then\n\nhe shall be given full pay and allowances to which he would have been\n\nentitled to had he not been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or\n\nsuspended, as the case may be. It is further submitted that by the impugned\n\norders, the petitioner has been made to suffer double jeopardy because on\n\nthe one hand his one year of approved service has been ordered to be\n\nforfeited permanently for pay and promotion while treating the absence\n\nperiod as 'No Work No Pay' period and still further the post dismissal period\n\nhas been ordered to be treated as 'No Work No Pay' period. It is further\n\nsubmitted that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to\n\nthe alleged wrong committed by him. In support of his contentions, the\n\nlearned counsel would rely on the judgments in Housing Board, Haryana\n\nVersus Sh. S.B. Kumar, Asstt. Engineer and another 2012 (1) S.C.T.\n\n613, M.P. Jindal Versus State Bank of Patiala and Ors. 2013 (2) SLR\n\n251, Manjit Kumar @ Goldi Versus State of Punjab and others 2017\n\n(4) PLR 110, Satyapal @ Satpal Versus State of Haryana and others\n\n2018 (3) S.C.T. 109.5.                Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents--Sate\n\nwould submit that the petitioner remained on leave without prior sanction of\n\nthe competent authority. It is submitted that absence without permission is a\n\n\n\n\n                                     4 of 18::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 :::CWP No. 1756 of 2019                                                  5gravest misconduct in the disciplined force.          During the departmental\n\ninquiry, the petitioner could not justify his absence from duty and in case\n\nthe petitioner had any domestic problem, then he should have got his leave\n\nsanctioned from the competent authority, but he failed to do so. Therefore,\n\nno interference is called for in the instant writ petition.6.           I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone\n\nthrough the paper book as well as the law cited.7.           Primarily, the petitioner has raised three-fold arguments.\n\nFirstly, that once the punishing authority, after holding a departmental\n\ninquiry, has imposed the punishment of forfeiture of one year approved\n\nservice permanently for pay/promotion, then his absent period from\n\n21.11.1992 to 28.11.1992 and the period post dismissal i.e. 31.12.1992 to\n\n13.03.2017 cannot be treated as 'No Work No Pay' period; secondly Rule\n\n7.3 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I, Part I, Chapter VII provides\n\nthat once a government employee who has been dismissed, removed,\n\ncompulsorily retired or suspended, is reinstated upon having been fully\n\nexonerated, then he shall be given full pay and allowances to which he\n\nwould have been entitled to, had he not been dismissed, removed,\n\ncompulsorily retired or suspended, as the case may be and; thirdly, that the\n\npenalty imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the alleged wrong\n\ncommitted by him.In view of the submissions made by both the parties, the sole\n\nquestion that falls for consideration before this Court is, whether the\n\npetitioner could be denied his full pay and allowances for the period in\n\n\n\n\n                                       5 of 18::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 :::CWP No. 1756 of 2019                                                       6question i.e. from the date (31.12.1992) of dismissal till the date (13.3.2017)\n\nof his re-instatement in service, by treating the said period as 'No Work No\n\nPay' period?8.             In order to decide the question so framed, at the first instance, it\n\nhas to be decided whether the petitioner could be held responsible for not\n\nperforming the duties during the period wages have been denied to him by\n\ntreating the absent period as 'No work No Pay' period, or what were\n\ncircumstances which led to his absence from duty during the period in\n\nquestion or the fault, if any, which is attributable to the petitioner for not\n\nattending his duties.9.             Admittedly, after quashing of the dismissal order of the\n\npetitioner by this Court in writ petition, a regular departmental inquiry was\n\nheld against him, in which it was held that the charges of his links with\n\nterrorists and leakage of information to the terrorists was not proved but his\n\nabsence from duty at the Police Station Vairowal w.e.f. 21.11.1992 to\n\n28.11.1992 was proved. Thereafter, a show cause notice was served to the\n\npetitioner along with the inquiry report to which he submitted a reply. After\n\nconsidering the inquiry report and the reply of the petitioner, the punishing\n\nauthority, vide order dated 31.8.2017, ordered forfeiture of one year\n\napproved service permanently for pay/promotion, effect of which will be on\n\nhis future pay fixation/promotion. His period of absence from duty w.e.f.\n\n21.11.1992 to 28.11.1992 (total 7 days) was ordered to be treated as 'No\n\nWork No Pay' period and the period after his dismissal was also ordered to\n\nbe treated as 'No Work No Pay' for the reason that he had not rendered any\n\n\n\n\n                                        6 of 18::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 :::CWP No. 1756 of 2019                                                      7government duty during this span of time. The concluding paragraph of the\n\nimpugned order dated 31.8.2017 reads as under:-"After that, the delinquent employee appeared in person in my\n            office and repeated his stand put forth in his reply to the Show\n            Cause Notice. I do not accept his stand as such confirm the\n            proposed punishment already mentioned in Show Cause\n            Notice. I hereby order to that one (1) year of approved service\n            be forfeited permanently for pay/promotion and effect of which\n            will be on his future pay fixation/promotion. His absence from\n            duty w.e.f. 21.11.1992 to 28.11.1992 in total 7 days is ordered\n            to be treated as 'No Work No Pay' and the period after his\n            dismissal is also ordered to be treated as "No Work No Pay"for the reason that he has not rendered any government duty\n            during this span of time.Apart from that, as per his record, his absence from duty\n            period prior to dismissal i.e. 26.9.1992 to 16.10.1992 (20\n            days), 25.10.1992 to 28.10.1992 (3 days) vide order book no.\n            1123/92 and 09.11.1992 to 16.11.1992 (7 days), has already\n            been treated as "No Work No Pay".As already noticed, the petitioner filed an appeal/supplementary appeal\n\nagainst the orders dated 31.8.2017 and 19.9.2017 before the Inspector\n\nGeneral of Police, Border Range, Amritsar, who while rejecting the same\n\nobserved as under:-"6. After carefully going through the appeal/supplementary\n            appeal, comments thereon offered by SSP/Tarn Taran,\n            examining the departmental enquiry file, punishment order,\n            pay fixation order and the entire relevant record, the appellant\n            Constable Major Singh No. 2729/TTN (Now 1020/TTN), were\n            also called to office for personnel hearing. During personnel\n            hearing,   he   reiterated         the   submissions   made   in   his\n\n\n\n\n                                     7 of 18::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 :::CWP No. 1756 of 2019                                                   8appeal/supplementary appeal.7.    Upon hearing the appellant personally and on\n           examination of the record, it has been found that the\n           submissions      made        by    the     appellant   in       his\n           appeal/supplementary appeal are not reasonable/acceptable,\n           since he was awarded punishment of dismissal from service by\n           the punishing authority (the then SSP/Tarn Taran), in view of\n           his gravest act of misconduct/activities, pre-judicial to the\n           efficient functioning of the police force, during the year 1992.\n           The then misconduct of the appellant further led to protracted\n           litigation, almost for a long period of 23 years as well as\n           wastage of various resources of the police department. In\n           compliance with the orders dated 16.12.2016 passed by the\n           Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CWP No.\n           6406/1994, the appellant has been reinstated in service by the\n           punishing authority (SSP/Tarn Taran) vide his office order\n           dated 10567-80/B dated 10.3.2017. On the basis of allegations\n           of willful absence for 07 days w.e.f. 21.11.1992 to 28.11.1992\n           while posted at PS Verowal, District Tarn Taran, which were\n           proved during the departmental proceedings, the appellant has\n           been awarded punishment of forfeiture of one year approved\n           service towards annual increment with permanent effect by the\n           punishing authority vide order No. 2347-51/PA dated\n           31.08.2017. Pay of the appellant has been fixed by SSP/Tarn\n           Taran vide order No. 36933/B/CRC dated 19.09.2017, by\n           depriving him of the annual increments for the year 1993 to\n           2016, since the appellant had not discharged any duties and\n           had done no work during the relevant period, being out of\n           service."From the reading of the above re-produced impugned orders, it is\n\nabundantly clear that the principle of 'No Work No Pay' has been applied\n\n\n\n\n                                    8 of 18::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 :::CWP No. 1756 of 2019                                                     9only for the reason that the petitioner did not render any government duty\n\nduring the period in question. The appellate authority also took the view\n\nthat the misconduct of the petitioner led to protracted litigation almost for a\n\nlong period of 23 years as well as wastage of various resources of the police\n\ndepartment. So the question that arises is, whether the long period of 23\n\nyears is attributable to the petitioner? After dismissal of the petitioner from\n\nservice on 31.12.1992, he filed CWP No. 6406 of 1994 in this Court, which\n\nwas allowed on 16.12.2016 and his dismissal order was quashed, albeit\n\ngiving liberty to the respondents to hold a departmental inquiry against the\n\npetitioner. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated on 13.3.2017, subject\n\nto the outcome of a fresh departmental inquiry. From the facts stated above,\n\nit is apparent that the petitioner has been continuously pursuing the legal\n\nremedy available to him in law and there has been no delay on his part.\n\nTherefore, it cannot be held that the petitioner ever refused to perform his\n\nduties. The reasoning given by the appellate authority that misconduct of\n\nthe appellant further led to protracted litigation, almost for a long period of\n\n23 years as well as wastage of various resources of the police department, is\n\nstrange enough, as if all the faults lie with the petitioner. In fact, the\n\npetitioner had been vigilant about his right and he had been pursuing his\n\nlegal remedy consistently. In fact, in the opinion of the Court if the\n\nconcerned authority has been circumspect/careful while issuing dismissal\n\norder at the first instance, the entire litigation would not have followed.\n\nThus, the petitioner can not be the cause of protracted litigation.10.          At this stage, it will be appropriate to advert to Rule 7.3 of the\n\n\n\n\n                                      9 of 18::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 :::CWP No. 1756 of 2019                                                  10Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I, Part I, Chapter VII, which reads as\n\nunder:"7.3. (1) When a Government employee, who has been\n           dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired, is reinstated as a\n           result of appeal, revision or review, or would have been so\n           reinstated but for his retirement on superannuation while\n           under suspension or not, the authority competent to order\n           reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order-(a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the\n           Government employee for the period of his absence from duty\n           including the period of suspension, preceding his dismissal,\n           removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be; and (b)\n           whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period\n           spent on duty.(2) Where the authority competent to order re- instatement is of\n           opinion that the Government employee, who had been\n           dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired, has been fully\n           exonerated, the Government employee shall, subject to the\n           provisions of sub-rule (6), be paid his full pay and allowances\n           to which he would have been entitled, had he not been\n           dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended,\n           prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as\n           the case may be:Provided that where such authority is of opinion that the\n           termination      of   the proceedings    instituted   against   the\n           Government employee had been delayed due to reasons\n           directly attributable to the Government employee it may, after\n           giving him an opportunity to make representation and after\n           considering the representation, if any, submitted by him, direct,\n           for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the Government\n           employee shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (7), be10 of 18::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 :::CWP No. 1756 of 2019                                              11paid for the period of such delay only such amount (not being\n          the whole) of pay and allowances, as it may determine. (3) In a\n          case falling under sub-rule (2), the period of absence from duty\n          including the period of suspension preceding dismissal,\n          removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, shall be\n          treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. (4) In cases\n          other than those covered by sub-rule (2) including cases where\n          the order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from\n          service is set aside by the authority exercising powers of\n          appeal, revision or review solely on the ground of\n          noncompliance with the requirements of clause (2) ofarticle\n          311of the Constitution and no further inquiry is proposed to\n          be held, the Government employee shall, subject to the\n          provisions of sub-rules (6) and (7), be paid such amount (not\n          being the whole) of pay and allowances to which he would\n          have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or\n          compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal,\n          removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, as the\n          competent authority may determine, after giving notice to the\n          government employee of the quantum proposed and after\n          considering the representation, if any, submitted by him in that\n          connection within such period as may be specified in the\n          notice.Provided that any payment under this sub-rule to a\n          Government employee other than a Government employee who\n          is governed by the provisions of the payment of Wages Act,\n          1936 (Act 4 of 1936) shall be restricted to a period of three\n          years immediately preceding the date on which order for re-\n          instatement of such Government employee are passed by the\n          authority exercising the powers of appeal, revision or review,\n          or immediately preceding the date of retirement on\n          superannuation of such Government employee, as the case\n\n\n\n\n                                  11 of 18::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 :::CWP No. 1756 of 2019                                                  12may be.xxxx          xxxx           xxxx..."A bare reading of the provision would make it clear that once a Government\n\nemployee who has been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or\n\nsuspended, is re-instated upon having been fully exonerated, then he shall\n\nbe given full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled to\n\nhad he not been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or suspended as\n\nthe case may be.11.          In the facts of the present case, once the order of dismissal was\n\nquashed by this Court and the petitioner was reinstated in service, there is\n\nno justification or valid reasoning to deny him the service benefits for the\n\nperiod the petitioner remained out of service, by applying the principle of\n\n'No Work No Pay', particularly when it is not the case of the respondents\n\nthat the petitioner ever refused to perform his duty.12.          Now coming to the legal position, insofar as application of the\n\nprinciple of 'No Work No Pay' is concerned, this Court in CWP-17952 of\n\n2012 tilted as'Kailash Chander Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and\n\nanother', decided on 13.10.2014 held that where the departmental\n\nproceedings were dropped by recording the fact that the charges were not\n\nproved, the denial of the consequential benefits of actual arrears of the\n\nsalary for the period the person remained out on the basis of 'no work no\n\npay' is arbitrary and cannot be sustained. The relevant paragraphs of the\n\njudgment, wherein, the law on the subject has been noticed while giving\n\nfinding, are as under: -12 of 18::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 :::CWP No. 1756 of 2019                                               13"7. The applicability of the rule of 'no work no pay' in a\n          situation where departmental proceedings had been initiated\n          against an employee, sealed cover procedure having been\n          resorted to and such employee after exoneration having been\n          promoted came up for consideration before Hon'ble Supreme\n          Court of India inUnion of India v. K.V.Jankiraman, 1991(3)\n          SCT 317 and it was held as under:"The normal rule of "no work no pay" is not applicable\n                to cases such as the present one where the employee\n                although he is willing to work is kept away from work by\n                the authorities for no fault of his. This is not a case\n                where the employee remains away from work for his own\n                reasons, although the work is offered to him."It was further held that:".........We are, therefore, broadly in agreement with the\n                finding of the Tribunal that when an employee is\n                completely exonerated meaning thereby that he is not\n                found blameworthy in the least and is not visited with the\n                penalty even of censure, he has to be given the benefit of\n                the salary of the higher post along with the other benefits\n                from the date on which he would have normally been\n                promoted but for the disciplinary/criminal proceedings."8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court inState of Kerala and others\n          Vs. E.K.Bhaskaran Pillai, (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 524\n          has held that principle of 'no work no pay' cannot be accepted\n          as a rule of thumb and where Administration has wrongly\n          denied his due, he should be given full benefits.The Hon'ble\n          Supreme Court inE.K.Bhaskaran Pillai's case (supra) has laid\n          down as under:-"So far as the situation with regard to monetary benefits\n                with retrospective promotion is concerned, that depends\n                upon case to case. There are various facets which have\n\n\n\n\n                                  13 of 18::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 :::CWP No. 1756 of 2019                                              14to be considered. Sometimes in a case of departmental\n               enquiry or in criminal case it depends on the authorities\n               to grant full back wages or 50 per cent of back wages\n               looking to the nature of delinquency involved in the\n               matter or in criminal cases where the incumbent has\n               been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt or full\n               acquittal. Sometimes in the matter when the person is\n               superseded and he has challenged the same before court\n               or tribunal and he succeeds in that and direction is given\n               for reconsideration of his case from the date persons\n               junior to him were appointed,in that casethe court may\n               grant sometimes full benefits with retrospective effect\n               and sometimes it may not. Particularly when the\n               administration has wrongly denied his due thenin that\n               casehe should be given full benefits including monetary\n               benefit subject to there being any change in law or some\n               other supervening factors. However, it is very difficult to\n               set down any hard-and-fast rule. The principle "no work\n               no pay" cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb. There\n               are exceptions where courts have granted monetary\n               benefits also."9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter ofThe\n          Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C.Muddaiahreported as 2007(4) SCT 452 observed as under:"The matter can be looked at from another angle also. It\n               is true that while granting a relief in favour of a party,\n               the Court must consider the relevant provisions of law\n               and issue appropriate directions keeping in view such\n               provisions. There may, however, be cases where on the\n               facts and in the circumstances, the Court may issue\n               necessary directions in the larger interest of justice\n               keeping in view the principles of justice, equity and good\n\n\n\n\n                                 14 of 18::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 :::CWP No. 1756 of 2019                                              15conscience. Take a case, where ex facie injustice has\n               been meted out to an employee. In spite of the fact that\n               he is entitled to certain benefits, they had not been given\n               to him. His representations have been illegally and\n               unjustifiably turned down. He finally approaches a\n               Court of Law. The Court is convinced that gross\n               injustice has been done to him and he was wrongfully,\n               unfairly and with oblique motive deprived of those\n               benefits. The Court, in the circumstances, directs the\n               Authority to extend all benefits which he would have\n               obtained had he not been illegally deprived of them. Is it\n               open to the Authorities in such case to urge that as he\n               has not worked (but held to be illegally deprived), he\n               would not be granted the benefits? Upholding of such\n               plea would amount to allowing a party to take undue\n               advantage of his own wrong. It would perpetrate\n               injustice rather than doing justice to the person\n               wronged. We are conscious and mindful that even in\n               absence of statutory provision, normal rule is 'no work\n               no pay'. In appropriate cases, however, a Court of Law\n               may, nay must, take into account all the facts in their\n               entirety and pass an appropriate order in consonance\n               with law. The Court, in a given case, may hold that the\n               person was willing to work but was illegally and\n               unlawfully not allowed to do so. The Court may, in the\n               circumstances, direct the Authority to grant him all\n               benefits considering 'as if he had worked'. It, therefore,\n               cannot be contended as an absolute proposition of law\n               that no direction of payment of consequential benefits\n               can be granted by a Court of Law and if such directions\n               are issued by a Court, the Authority can ignore them\n               even if they had been finally confirmed by the Apex\n\n\n\n\n                                 15 of 18::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 :::CWP No. 1756 of 2019                                                 16Court of the country (as has been done in the present\n                case). The bald contention of the appellant - Board,\n                therefore, has no substance and must be rejected."10. Adverting back to the facts of the present case, it has gone\n          uncontroverted that departmental proceedings were initiated\n          against the petitioner by issuance of a charge sheet in the year\n          1997. For no fault of the employee i.e. the present petitioner,\n          such proceedings were kept pending and not finalized for a\n          period of 13 long years. Finally, vide order dated 24.6.2010,\n          Annexure P3, a categoric finding came to be recorded that the\n          charge levelled against him is not established and as such, the\n          disciplinary case was dropped. Relevant finding recorded in\n          the order dated 24.6.2010 passed by the General Manager,\n          Irrigation Department, Haryana reads in the following terms:"........On careful examination of the record, it does\n                  not establish at this stage that there was any back date\n                  entry any where in the Measurement Book. Therefore,\n                  the explanation given by the Sub Divisional Clerk\n                  seems to be tenable. This case was also considered at\n                  the   Government          level   and   on   consideration\n                  Government decided to drop the disciplinary cases\n                  against the officers involved in the case. Record also\n                  reveals that the Junior Engineer who was also\n                  involved in this matter could not be charge sheeted\n                  because of his death. In such circumstances, when the\n                  officers who actually carried out the work and made\n                  entries and with whom the onus of the charges lies,\n                  have been exonerated after a thorough enquiry it will\n                  not be justifiable to punish a junior level staffer who\n                  just checked the entry arithmetically.Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of this\n                case the defence stated by the Sub Divisional Clerk\n\n\n\n\n                                 16 of 18::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 :::CWP No. 1756 of 2019                                                   17during the course of hearing, it is concluded that the\n                  charge against him is not established. It is therefore,\n                  decided to drop the disciplinary case against Shri\n                  Kailash Chander, Sub Divisional Clerk. Ordered\n                  accordingly.Sd/-( Tilak Raj )\n                                               General       Manager,Irrigation\n                                               Department, Haryana,\n                                               Panchkula."11. Under such circumstances and by applying the dictumlaid\n            down bythe Hon'ble Supreme Court inState of Haryana v. OP\n            Gupta,State of Kerala and others v. E.K.Bhaskaran PillaiandThe Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C.Muddaiah(supra), the petitioner cannot be denied the consequential\n            benefit of actual arrears/salary for the period in question. It is\n            not the case where the petitioner had declined to work on the\n            promoted post, rather he was denied the opportunity to occupy\n            the promotional posts on account of pendency of departmental\n            proceedings and which were also dragged and delayed for no\n            fault of his. The principle of 'no work no pay' would have no\n            applicability in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the\n            present case."13.         From the facts and the legal position discussed above, it is clear\n\nthat the petitioner had been consistently pursuing his legal remedy; he never\n\nrefused to perform his duties and thus there is no fault attributable to the\n\npetitioner for the protracted litigation. He was well within his right to\n\npursue his legal remedy.       Therefore, the action on the part of the\n\nrespondents in declining the service benefits including the pay and\n\nallowances for the period the petitioner remained out of service, is not\n\njustifiable and consequently the instant writ petition is allowed, the\n\n\n\n\n                                    17 of 18::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 :::CWP No. 1756 of 2019                                                    18impugned orders dated 31.8.2017 (Annexure P-3), 19.9.2017 (Annexure\n\nP/4) and 21.9.2018 (Annexure P/6) are set aside only to the extent of\n\ntreating the post dismissal period from 31.12.1992 to 13.3.2017 of the\n\npetitioner as 'No work No Pay' period and subsequent denial of pay and\n\nallowances for the said period. It is directed that the petitioner will be\n\ntreated in service uninterruptedly during the said period for all intents and\n\npurposes and the period for which he remained out of service on account of\n\ndismissal will be treated as a duty period for all intents and purposes\n\nincluding for the grant of increments and fixation of pay.14.         Let the said exercise be done by the respondents within a\n\nperiod of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the\n\narrears for which the petitioner is found entitled for be released to him\n\nwithin a period next three months, failing which such sum shall carry an\n\ninterest of 6% per annum.September 19, 2022                             (JAISHREE THAKUR)\nprem                                                            JUDGE\n\nWhether speaking/reasoned :            Yes\nWhether Reportable :                   No\n\n\n\n\n                                    18 of 18::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 :::