Akhilesh Kumar Pathak vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

D.N. Patel

The present petitioner is seeking salary for the period running from 15th September, 2010 to 5th January, 2011 and also seeking regularization on the said period mainly on the ground that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher, but, he was not allowed to resume the duties.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the respondents have already filed a detailed counter affidavit and it has been stated in the counter affidavit that the aforesaid period is regularized, so far as counting of length of service of the petitioner is concerned. The prayer for regularization, which is made in the memo of this petition, has been accepted by the respondents. So far as payment of salary is concerned, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent State that on the basis of the principle of "No Work, No Salary", the petitioner is not entitled to get salary for the post of Assistant Teacher.

In view of these submissions and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the present petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 10th September, 2010 vide order at Annexure-1 to the memo of the petitioner. It is alleged by the petitioner that he had gone to resume the duties on 15th September, 2010, but, he was not allowed to resume the duties by the respondents till 5th January, 2011 and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get salary for the aforesaid period as well as for regularization of the aforesaid period so that the petitioner may be treated as senior in comparison with the other junior teachers and for all other periodical increments etc., his date of joining may be treated as 15th September, 2010. This contention is accepted by the respondents, looking to the counter affidavit. Now, the petitioner is making claim of payment of salary for the period running from 15th September, 2010 to 5th January, 2011. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that the petitioner has not worked as an Assistant Teacher for the aforesaid period and, therefore, on the basis of principle of "No Work, No Salary", he is not entitled to get the salary. The salary is commensurated with the duties performed. When the petitioner has not performed any duty as an Assistant Teacher, he is not entitled to get salary for the aforesaid period and, therefore, second prayer is not accepted by this Court. The petitioner may file any suit for damages, but, the salary can be paid only when the duties are performed. Absolutely in this case, no duty as an Assistant Teacher has been performed by the petitioner and, therefore, the salary for the aforesaid period cannot be paid nor any other allowances connected with the pay scale of post of Assistant Teacher, can be paid to the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid facts, this writ petition is partly allowed, looking to the counter affidavit. So far as claim of salary is concerned, this writ petition is, hereby, dismissed.