S.P. Singh vs State of M.P. and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 24.12.2011 to the extent the suspension period is treated as not spent on duty for the purpose of pay and allowances. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was placed under suspension. He was subjected to a disciplinary action. In the disciplinary action the charges were not found proved against him. Thereafter, suspension period was decided by order dated 24.12.2011 holding that since the petitioner has not worked during the suspension period, the principle of "no work no pay" would be applicable and petitioner will not be entitled for getting pay and allowances. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on this aspect.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the action of the respondent in not treating the suspension period for grant of financial benefits is without any justiciable reason. The principle of "no work no pay" cannot be made applicable in cases where the employee was willing to work and he was kept under suspension by the employer. The petitioner, admittedly stood exonerated from the charges. Even in cases of minor punishment, this Court opined that the employee is entitled to get the pay and allowances for suspension period. This view was taken in Deena Nath Tiwari Vs. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, followed by Division Bench in State of M.P. and another Vs. Shailendra,

The petitioner''s case is on better footing because he stood exonerated. There is no such unfettered discretion with the employer not to treat such period as spent on duty for pay and allowances. Accordingly, I am unable to uphold the order dated 24.12.2011. The said order to the extent it deprives pay and allowances for suspension period is set aside. The respondents are directed to pay the said amount to the petitioner within ninety days. If the amount is not paid within the aforesaid time, it will carry 8% interest till the date of realization. Petition is allowed. No cost.