“No Work, No Pay” Doesn't Apply If Appointment Delay Is Due To Authorities' Fault : Calcutta HC

A division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Harish Tandon, J and Prasenjit Biswas, J held that the principle of “No Work, No Pay” does not apply when the delay in appointment is due to the fault of the authorities, thus entitling the affected person to monetary benefits. Background Facts The appellant appeared for 12th Regional Level Selection Test (RLST) for the post of Assistant Teacher in various Government sponsored schools within the State. She filed a writ petition to flag an issue on the correctness of the answers to some of the questions. The court passed an order directing the authorities to look into the same. Therefore, authorities ultimately found that the answers to such specific questions as disclosed in the answer keys were incorrect. The appellant was awarded marks and included in the panel of the successful candidates. However, there was a gap of nearly a decade in achieving such result and ultimately, appellant's appointment was made to the post of Assistant Teacher in the year, 2020 after a decade. The appellant claimed the monetary benefits as well as the other financial benefits from a retrospective date, i.e., the date on which the last candidate in the said 12th RLST was appointed. However, the authorities did not listen to the prayer of the appellant and rejected it. It was further challenged by the appellant. The Court set aside the authority's order and directed the Principal Secretary, Department of Education to consider the representation. The Principal Secretary held that the prayer of the appellant for grant of monetary benefit with effect from Nov, 2013, to her date of joining i.e. 07.11.2020, was forwarded to the Finance Department, Government of West Bengal for their consideration. But the Finance Department rejected the prayer on 19th June, 2024 while observing that pay and allowances become admissible only when a person being duly employed discharges duties. The finance department found no reason to allow the consequential benefits i.e. actual pay and allowances w.e.f November, 2013, till joining the school as Assistant Teacher on 07/11/2020 on ground that she hadn't rendered any service during entire period. The appellant challenged the order of Finance Department by filing a writ petition which was disposed of by the Single Bench on 25th July, 2024. The court found no flaw in the decision taken by the Finance Department. Thereby single bench fixed the pay of the appellant in sync with the decision of the Finance Department. It was held that the appellant cannot claim actual arrear benefits without formally being appointed in the post of Assistant Teacher. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the instant mandamus appeal. It was submitted by the appellant that neither the Finance Department nor the Single Bench took note of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Ramesh Kumar vs. Union of India and Others, wherein it is held that the principle of no work no pay has no manner of applicability in a situation where the authorities were at fault in not appointing the persons to the post. On the other hand, it was submitted by the State that there were other judgments which run counter to those proposition for the reason that the person who had not worked nor discharged the duties attached to the post is not entitled to receive any amount either on account of salary or otherwise. Findings of the Court It was observed by the court that the Principal Secretary of the School Education Department in his decision dated 26th March, 2022 forwarded the entire papers to the Finance Department to take an independent decision, however, the principal secretary failed to do so. The case of Ramesh Kumar VS Union of India & Ors was relied upon by the court wherein the Supreme Court held that the Principle of “No work no pay” could not be attracted where the respondents were in fault. Further the reliance was placed upon the three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others vs. K.V. Jankiraman and Others for the same proposition meaning thereby that the principle of no work no pay cannot be applied when the authorities are found to have committed a fault which deprives the person to be appointed to the said post. It was observed by the court that the moment the Principal Secretary, School Education Department forwarded the entire papers to the Finance Department to take an independent decision, it was obligatory on the part of the Finance Department to take into consideration the ratio before it jumped to the conclusion that the appellant was not entitled to any monetary relief. It was held by the court that the principle of no work no pay cannot be applied when the authorities are found to have committed a fault which deprives the person to be appointed to the said post. The order of the Single Bench was set aside by the court. Consequently,...

“No Work, No Pay” Doesn't Apply If Appointment Delay Is Due To Authorities' Fault : Calcutta HC

Namdev Singh

Tags