Employee unlawfully denied duty can claim full salary, nullifying "no work, no pay".

The applicant, Sant Ram, an ex-serviceman with 18 years of army service, was appointed as a Fireman (Civilian) on February 6, 2002, at the Central Ordnance Depot, Delhi Cantt.

He submitted an application dated October 8, 2021, seeking Earned Leave for the period from October 8, 2021, to February 10, 2022.

While the leave application was pending, the respondents issued an absentee notice on November 12, 2021, which the applicant received on November 23, 2021.

The applicant replied to the absentee notice on November 24, 2021, stating that his leave application had been dispatched by post on October 8, 2021, after obtaining telephonic permission, but his December 2021 salary was withheld without prior notice.

The applicant reported for duty on January 6, 2022, with leave documents but was directed to return home and join on February 11, 2022, with a medical fitness certificate.

On January 14, 2022, he received a letter dated December 31, 2021, from the Personnel Branch, stating his leave application had not been received and directing him to forward it with medical documents and report for duty.

When he attempted to report on January 15, 2022, with relevant documents, he was denied entry by the Civilian Security Officer.

He submitted a detailed representation on January 17, 2022, seeking sanction of Earned Leave.

On February 11, 2022, the applicant reported for duty with a Medical Fitness Certificate dated February 10, 2022, from a Registered Medical Officer.

Instead of being permitted to resume duty, he was asked to produce police verification for the period from October 8, 2021, to February 10, 2022.

He applied for police verification on February 12, 2022, and again reported for duty on February 14, 2022, but was not allowed to join.

He sent another representation on February 15, 2022, and was directed to submit a fresh application via a letter dated February 18, 2022.

Complying, he submitted a fresh application on February 28, 2022, seeking sanction of Earned Leave and permission to join duty from February 11, 2022.

No action was taken by the respondents, forcing the applicant to file the present Original Application.

Even after receiving a letter dated March 12, 2022, directing him to report, he reported on March 21, 2022, but was again not permitted to join and was told to obtain joining orders from the Court.

Earned Leave for the period from October 8, 2021, to February 10, 2022, was eventually sanctioned on October 20, 2022.

Vide letter dated January 12, 2023, the applicant was permitted to rejoin duty, though his medical certificate was termed "not proper," and he rejoined duty on January 20, 2023.

His salary from December 2021 onwards has not been released.

The respondents' additional affidavit dated January 10, 2024, alleged the applicant remained absent from February 11, 2022, to January 19, 2023, and stated pay would be released upon receipt of sanctioned leave.

The applicant asserted he was repeatedly prevented from joining despite his readiness to work.

The Original Application was initially disposed of by the Tribunal on June 11, 2024.

The applicant then approached the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 9813/2024, which remanded the matter back to the Tribunal vide order dated December 3, 2025, for reconsideration of the period from February 11, 2022, onwards.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to the release of all pay and allowances from February 11, 2022, onwards, and whether he was unlawfully restrained by the respondents from joining duties from February 11, 2022, onwards.

2. Whether the period from February 11, 2022, to January 19, 2023, should be treated as duty for all intents and purposes.

3. Whether the principle of "no work, no pay" applies when an employee is willing to work but is prevented from doing so by the employer.

The court primarily applied the principle that "no work no pay" does not apply where an employee is willing to work but is kept away from duty for no fault of his.

This principle was specifically informed by the Supreme Court's decision in *Burn Standard Co. Ltd. And Ors. vs. Tarun Kumar Chakraborty and Ors.*, (2002) 10 SCC 585, which highlighted that an employee denied joining duty despite reporting cannot be denied salary on the "no work, no pay" principle, especially when the employer's actions cannot be justified.

The court also referenced Rule 24(3)(d) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, which states that the competent authority may accept a certificate from a Registered Medical Practitioner for a non-gazetted employee.

The Tribunal noted the High Court's directive to reconsider whether the applicant was unlawfully restrained from joining duty from February 11, 2022, and if so, the effect thereof, specifically regarding pay and allowances.

The applicant consistently represented his availability for duty from February 11, 2022, onwards, and submitted a valid Medical Fitness Certificate.

The respondents, despite being queried, offered no satisfactory explanation for not considering these representations, which were supported by documents like the Gate Register (Annexure RAA/3).

The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the applicant had not submitted his leave application and medical fitness certificate for the period from February 11, 2022, to January 19, 2023, hence the period was not regularized and pay was withheld.

However, the court found that the applicant had "repeatedly approached the respondents seeking permission to resume duty," demonstrating his "consistent willingness and readiness to join".

Citing *Burn Standard Co. Ltd. (supra)*, the Tribunal determined that the applicant reported for duty on February 11, 2022, and was thereafter consistently prevented from joining.

In such circumstances, the applicant could not be held responsible for not working during that period, and the inability to work was not due to any lapse on his part.

Therefore, the period from February 11, 2022, to January 19, 2023, deserves to be treated as duty for all intents and purposes.

The respondents are directed to release all pay and allowances admissible for the said period within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

The Original Application is accordingly disposed of, including all pending MAs, with no costs.