← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/2061/2014dismissed

Ramchandra Gautam v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

2021-09-29Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal3 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No.2061 of 2014 • Ramchandra Gautam, S/o Shiv Dulare, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Bijara, Girls Primary School, Bijara, Block Podi - Uproda, P.S. And Post Podi - Uproda, Distt. Korba, Civil And Revenue Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Department, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Police Station Raipur, Head Post Office Raipur, Police and Revenue District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Collector, Korba, P.S. And P.S. Rampur I.T.I. Korba, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh

3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Podi Uproda, Block Podi Uproda, P.S. and Post Podi Uproda, Distt. Korba , Chhattisgarh

4. Block Education Officer Podi - Uproda, Distt. Korba C.G. , District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondent-State Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Dy. GA Hon'ble Justice Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 29/09/2021 1.

Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that pursuant to the

order of this Court, the salary for the period 04.09.2012 to 25.09.2012 has already been paid to the petitioner, but the salary for the period 26.09.2012 to 23.03.2013 has not been paid to the petitioner, for which the petitioner has made representation to the respondent No.4 vide Annexure-P/6, which has been rejected vide order dated 08.01.2014 (Annexure-P/8) on the principle of 'No Work No Pay', which is unsustainable and bad in law.

Therefore, the respondent authorities may be directed to pay the petitioner's salary for the aforesaid period along with interest.

2.

Mr. Siddharth Dubey, learned State counsel, would support the impugned order.

3.

On perusal of the order (Annexure-P/8) would show that the salary for the period 04.09.2012 to 25.09.2012 has already been paid to the petitioner, but the claim of the petitioner for the salary for the period 26.09.2012 to 23.03.2013 has been rejected on the principle of 'No Work No Pay citing reason that the petitioner did not join the duties and did not perform any work for the aforesaid period. The said finding recorded by the Competent

Authority is neither perverse nor contrary to the record.

4.

I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost (s).

Sd/- Sanjay K. Agrawal Judge Nirala