Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 6632 of 2020 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Basudev Pradhan …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. J.K. Digal, Adv. Mr. D. Mund, AGA CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:- 01.08.2024 DATE OF JUDGMENT:- 24.09.2024 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. In the instant Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to set aside the impugned order, which treated the period in question as leave instead of duty. The Petitioner further prays for the period from 02.08.2016 to 17.09.2017 to be recognized as duty, with the extension of all attendant financial and consequential benefits. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Page 1 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 (i) The petitioner was working as an Ayurvedic Medical Officer (AMO) at the Government Ayurvedic Hospital (GAH), Bhubaneswar. On 01.08.2016, he was transferred to G.A.D. Turumu in Ganjam district via Government Order No. 16138/H. On the same day, one Dr. Prajna Parida was posted to the petitioner’s position in Bhubaneswar via Government Order No. 16140/H. (ii) After the petitioner’s transfer/ he filed O.A. No. 1624 of 2016 before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (OAT), Bhubaneswar. The Tribunal directed the Government to treat the paper book as a representation and dispose of it within a month. Meanwhile, the petitioner was allowed to continue at GAH, Bhubaneswar. (iii) However, the representation was rejected by the Government as the transfer was made on administrative grounds and was completed prior to the Tribunal’s order. (iv) After the petitioner was relieved from GAH Bhubaneswar, he did not hand over the charge of the Panchakarma Unit to his successor, Dr. Aurobindo Kumar Sahoo. Resultantly, the opposite party issued an order on 04.11.2016, directing the petitioner to hand over the charge, with a warning of disciplinary action if he failed to comply. (v) In O.A. No. 2928 (C) of 2016, the Tribunal stayed the order of 04.11.2016. Ultimately, the Tribunal quashed the transfer order on 01.05.2017 and directed the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue at GAH Bhubaneswar. (vi) After rejoining, the petitioner submitted a representation requesting that the period from 02.08.2016 to 17.09.2017 be treated as duty. The Page 2 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 matter was referred to the Government, which decided to treat the period as leave due and admissible, not as duty. (vii) Aggrieved by the actions of the Government, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking a direction from this Court to quash the impugned order which treated the period in question as leave rather than duty. The petitioner further prays that the period from 02.08.2016 to 17.09.2017 be recognized as duty, along with the grant of all consequential and financial benefits arising therefrom. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. (i) Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The petitioner submitted that since the Tribunal quashed the transfer order and allowed him to stay in his position, he should be entitled to all consequential benefits, including treating the period from 02.08.2016 to 17.09.2017 as duty. (ii) He further submitted that the authorities’ decision to treat the period as leave instead of duty is challenged as arbitrary, illegal, and lacking in proper consideration. (iii) The petitioner contended that it was not his fault that he was unable to discharge his duties during the period in question, and thus, he is entitled to full benefit for that time. (iv) He further contended that when a transfer order is declared illegal, the employee is entitled to all consequential benefits, including salary and treatment of the disputes period as active duty. Since the Tribunal’s order was not challenged, it has attained finality. Page 3 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. (i) The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: It is submitted that the petitioner’s transfer was made on administrative grounds and was completed before the Tribunal’s interim order. Therefore/ the petitioner’s contention that the transfer was arbitrary or vindictive holds no merit. (ii) It is further submitted that the petitioner failed to hand over the charge of the Panchakarma Unit after his transfer, causing suffering of the patients, which justifies the actions taken by the authorities, including the threat of disciplinary action. (iii) It is contended that the Government/ after considering the petitioner’s representation, rejected the request to treat the period as duty. Instead, they treated it as leave due and admissible, as the petitioner was relieved from duty on 01.08.2016 and rejoined on 18.09.2017 after the Tribunal’s decision. (iv) It is further contended that since the petitioner was not in active service from 02.08.2016 to 17.09.2017, he is not entitled to claim the period as duty, and consequently, is not eligible for duty pay for that period. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and duly perused the materials placed on record. At the very outset, it is apparent that the petitioner was transferred to GAD, Turumu, Ganjam, which prompted him to file an original application before the Administrative Tribunal. Page 4 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 The Tribunal, after due consideration, disposed of the matter by quashing the impugned transfer order. The central issue for adjudication before this Court is whether the petitioner is entitled to receive duty pay for the period from 02.08.2016 to 18.09.2017. 6. The doctrine of "no work, no pay" is not merely a procedural tenet but a deeply entrenched principle of justice, ensuring that remuneration is not conferred in absence of service. The Supreme Court in the case of Union Territory Chandigarh v. Brijmohan Kaur1 unequivocally reaffirmed this principle, holding that it rests upon the foundational concept that when an employee has not performed any work, and there has been no refusal on the part of the employer to provide such work, the doctrine shall be operative. This principle is rooted in considerations of public interest, ensuring that a government servant who has failed to fulfil their duties is not entitled to claim remuneration for work that was not performed, thereby safeguarding the public exchequer from undue expenditure 7. The Supreme Court, in Babu Lal v. Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board2, further nuanced the "no work, no pay" principle by holding that it shall not apply in cases where an employee is forcibly prevented from discharging their duties. In such instances, where the failure to perform is not voluntary but arises from circumstances beyond the employee’s control, the rationale behind this doctrine does not hold.