"No Work No Pay" Inapplicable Where Illegal Termination Prevents Employee From Discharging Duties Without Fault

The petitioner was appointed as a Correspondence Clerk on a regular pay scale in 2000

In 2015, the Road Construction Department initiated an inquiry into the validity of his appointment, leading to his termination on November 13, 2017

The petitioner challenged this in W.P.(S) No. 7096 of 2017, where the High Court quashed the termination and ordered reinstatement on March 2, 2021

This decision was upheld by the Division Bench and subsequently by the Supreme Court on November 6, 2023

Following a contempt petition, the respondents reinstated the petitioner on November 24, 2023, but applied the principle of "No Work No Pay" for the period of termination (13.11.2017 to 24.11.2023) under Rule 97 and Rule 180 of the Jharkhand Service Code, denying him back wages and increments

1. Whether the principle of "No Work No Pay" under the Service Code can be applied to an employee whose termination was judicially declared illegal and who was prevented from working solely due to the employer's unlawful action

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to full back wages and consequential benefits for the period he remained out of service due to the quashed termination order

The court relied on the Supreme Court precedent Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (2013), which establishes that if a termination is found ultra vires or in violation of natural justice, the employee is entitled to full back wages unless the employer proves the employee was gainfully employed during that period

It also referenced G.T. Lad & Ors. v. Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd. (1979) regarding service continuity

The court clarified that Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code applies specifically to suspension—not termination—and Rule 180 pertains to extraordinary leave, rendering both inapplicable to the present case

The Court reasoned that once a termination order is quashed, it is "rubbed out from the service career" as if it never existed, necessitating the restoration of the employee to their original position

The court noted that the petitioner's inability to serve was not due to misconduct but was a result of the State's illegal action

Since the petitioner explicitly pleaded that he was not gainfully employed during the termination period—a claim the State failed to controvert in their counter-affidavit—the burden of proof shifted to the employer to justify the denial of wages

The court found that applying "No Work No Pay" in this context would unfairly punish the employee for the employer's wrong

It held that the "No Work No Pay" declaration was unsustainable in law

The respondents were directed to treat the period from November 13, 2017, to November 24, 2023, as "on duty" for all purposes and to pay full back wages and all consequential benefits within twelve weeks