Authorities must decide suspension-period salary claims in accordance with Fundamental Rules and applicable precedents.

The petitioner challenged the portion of the order dated 1 February 2017 treating the period from 21 February 2013 to 1 February 2017 as “no work, no pay,” and sought release of salary, consequential revision of retiral benefits, arrears, and interest.

The petitioner contended that the order of reversion had been set aside by the appellate authority and that, consequently, no punishment remained against him.

The State did not oppose the limited prayer for a direction to consider the petitioner’s representation.

1. Whether, after the order of reversion was set aside and no punishment order remained, the petitioner could claim salary for the period from 21 February 2013 to 1 February 2017, treated as “no work, no pay”.

2. Whether the competent authority should be directed to reconsider the petitioner’s claim in light of Y.S. Sachan, State of M.P. v. Shailendra, and the applicable provisions of the Fundamental Rules.

The Court relied on Fundamental Rule 54-B, governing pay and allowances for periods of suspension, and the principle that denial of salary for such period must be supported by a reasoned order.

In Y.S. Sachan v. State of M.P. & Others, the Court held that where departmental proceedings initiated for a major penalty culminate in only a minor penalty, the suspension may be treated as wholly unjustified and the employee may be entitled to full pay and allowances; an employee should not be subjected to the heavier consequence of forfeiture of salary when only a minor punishment is imposed.

The Court also followed the Division Bench decision in State of M.P. & Another v. Shailendra, ILR (2011) M.P. 2315, which applied the relevant governmental circular and held that full salary could not be denied without notice, opportunity of hearing, and a proper basis under the applicable rules.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s reversion had been set aside and that he claimed no punishment order remained operative.

The principles in Y.S. Sachan and Shailendra were potentially relevant because they recognize that salary for a suspension period cannot ordinarily be withheld merely by mechanically applying “no work, no pay,” particularly where the disciplinary consequence is absent or minor and the order denying salary is not properly reasoned.

However, since the State accepted the limited request for reconsideration and the merits of the salary claim had not been fully adjudicated, the Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh, detailed representation for decision by the competent authority.

The petitioner was directed to submit a fresh and detailed representation within one month.

The competent authority was directed to consider and decide it within two months from receipt of the certified copy of the order, keeping in view Y.S. Sachan, Shailendra, and the provisions of the Fundamental Rules.