Absence from duty despite employer instructions disentitles employee to salary beyond the period of actual work.

The Petitioner, a person with locomotor disability, was appointed as an Accounts Officer (Group B) at the National Small Industries Corporation Limited (Respondent No. 2) under a special recruitment drive for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs)

The Petitioner remained absent from duty for 133 days between September 2019 and February 2020, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic

During the pandemic, the Petitioner sought exemption from physical attendance based on Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memoranda (OMs), which Respondent No. 2 declined

The Petitioner filed O.A. No. 1195/2021 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking salary from July 2020 onwards and a declaration that his inclusion in duty rosters violated DoPT OMs

The Tribunal disposed of the OA on 29.06.2021, directing the release of salary only for the period the Petitioner actually discharged duties

The Petitioner challenged this order via a Writ of Certiorari.

Notably, his services were terminated in early 2022 due to continuous absence

Whether the inclusion of the Petitioner’s name in duty rosters during the COVID-19 pandemic was illegal in light of DoPT OMs providing exemptions to PwDs

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to salary for the period during which he did not physically attend office despite the Employer's directions

The Court considered the legal status of Office Memoranda issued by the DoPT dated 27.03.2020, 18.05.2020, and 19.05.2020 regarding pandemic-related exemptions for PwDs

It applied the principle that such administrative instructions are advisory in nature, allowing the Employer the discretion to assess its own "functional requirements"

Furthermore, the court adhered to the principle of "no work, no pay" in the context of unauthorized absence

The Court observed that the Petitioner's history of prolonged absence (133 days) predated the COVID-19 lockdown, suggesting a pattern of non-attendance unrelated to the pandemic

Although the Petitioner relied on DoPT OMs for exemption, the Court accepted the Respondents’ argument that these instructions were advisory and did not override the Employer's right to demand physical attendance based on functional needs

The Court highlighted that the Petitioner failed to resume duties despite repeated directions and continued to abstain even after the pandemic subsided

Consequently, the Court found no jurisdictional error or illegality in the Tribunal’s decision to limit salary payments to the period of actual service rendered

The Court affirmed the Tribunal's order, ruling that the Petitioner was only entitled to the "limited relief" of salary for the period he actually worked