Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition filed by the State of Maharashtra challenging an order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The respondent, Smt Sanjivani Shripad Ranade, was a Medical Officer appointed in 1967. She was transferred from Akola to Balapur in 1985 before completing her normal tenure and without administrative exigency. She challenged the transfer in the High Court, which granted a status quo order on 5.9.1985. She served the order on the authorities on 7.9.1985 and was allowed to work from 7.9.1985 to 20.9.1985, but thereafter was prevented from signing the muster roll on the pretext that she must await further orders. She remained available for work but was not permitted. She filed an Original Application before the Tribunal seeking salary for the period from 2.9.1985 to 10.3.1994. The Tribunal directed the State to treat the period from 2.9.1985 to 10.3.1993 as duty period and pay half salary, increments, HRA and admissible allowances. The State challenged this order in the High Court. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, holding that the employee cannot be penalized for the employer's wrongful act of preventing her from working. The court found that the respondent was willing to work but was unlawfully kept away, and therefore the principle of 'no work no pay' did not apply. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Salary for Forced Idleness - Principle of 'No Work No Pay' - Exception - Where an employee is willing to work but is unlawfully prevented by the employer, the employee is entitled to salary and allowances for the period of such forced idleness. The Tribunal directed the State to treat the period from 2.9.1985 to 10.3.1993 as duty period and pay half salary, increments, HRA and admissible allowances. (Paras 1-3) B) Service Law - Transfer - Challenge to Transfer - Status Quo Order - Employer cannot prevent employee from working after status quo order. The employee was transferred prematurely without exigency, challenged the transfer, and obtained status quo order. Despite the order, the employer prevented her from signing muster roll. Held that the employer's action was unlawful. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an employee who was willing to work but was unlawfully prevented from doing so by the employer is entitled to salary and allowances for the period of such forced idleness.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's order. The State was directed to treat the period from 2.9.1985 to 10.3.1993 as duty period and pay half salary, increments, HRA and admissible allowances to the respondent. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Principle of 'no work no pay' is not absolute
- employee cannot be penalized for employer's wrongful act
- employee must be paid for period she was willing to work but prevented
- doctrine of unjust enrichment
- entitlement to salary for forced idleness
