- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Shiv Nandan Mahto v. State Of Bihar And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant was appointed as a Clerk in Raj Kishore Balika High School, Narhan, Samastipur, Bihar on 31-12-1978 and joined on 1-1-1979. When the Directorate of Secondary Education granted permission for the school’s establishment, a 1982 inspection report mistakenly recorded the appellant as a Librarian—a post that was never sanctioned. As a result, when the State of Bihar took over the school on 2-8-1983 under the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking Over of Management and Control) Act, 1981, the appellant’s services were excluded.
Repeated representations led to various posting orders, but the appellant was never placed in a substantive Clerk vacancy and received no salary. After years of being shunted between offices, he filed Civil Writ Petition No. 516 of 1990 in the High Court seeking reinstatement and service benefits. A learned Single Judge ordered reinstatement with continuity of service but denied back wages. The appellant’s intra-court appeal (LPA No. 1859 of 2010) was dismissed in limine, the Division Bench applying the principle of “no work, no pay.” The present judgment arises from the appellant’s further appeal; leave was granted and the matter decided on merits.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an employee unlawfully kept out of service due to an administrative error is entitled to full back wages for the period of exclusion.
- Whether the High Court’s Division Bench erred in invoking the “no work, no pay” principle when the appellant was not at fault and was never under suspension.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court observed that the Division Bench of the High Court failed to examine the factual matrix: the appellant was excluded from service because of a clerical mistake, not disciplinary suspension. Consequently, the premise for applying the “no work, no pay” rule was incorrect. The Court reasoned that:
- The appellant’s original appointment as Clerk was never disputed; the misdescription as Librarian was inadvertent.
- Because the State’s own error prevented the appellant from working, the principle of “no work, no pay” would operate harshly and unjustly.
- The learned Single Judge had acknowledged the illegality of the exclusion but erred in withholding back wages; the Division Bench compounded the error by summararily dismissing the appeal without proper consideration.
Given these findings, the Court concluded that equity and legality required full back wages for the entire period of forced unemployment, along with compensatory interest.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed. The Division Bench judgment in LPA No. 1859 of 2010 is quashed. The appellant, already reinstated, is to receive full back wages for the entire period of exclusion, together with 9% interest, payable within three months of receipt of the order.
Implications: The decision provides relief specific to the appellant and underscores that “no work, no pay” cannot be invoked when an employee is prevented from working by the employer’s own mistake. The judgment sets no new precedent beyond reaffirming this equitable principle.
Order
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted.
2. The appellant was appointed against a permanent post of Clerk in the Raj Kishore Balika High School, Narhan, Samastipur, Bihar on 31-12-1978. He joined on the said post on 1-1-1979. Subsequently, the aforesaid school was granted permission by the Directorate of Secondary Education vide Office Memo No. 31346 dated 19-11-1981 for establishment of the aforesaid school. The school was inspected by the special Board on 6-8-1982. In the inspection report, the name of the appellant was inadvertently/wrongly shown as a Librarian. On coming to know of the aforesaid wrong entry, the appellant submitted a representation before the Directorate of Secondary Education seeking correction thereof.
3. On 1-5-1983, the Inspection Committee submitted its report and confirmed that the appellant had been working as a Clerk since the very beginning in the aforesaid school. The school was taken over by the Government of Bihar on 2-8-1983 in terms of the provisions of Section 3 of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking Over of Management and Control) Act, 1981. The services of the appellant were not taken over, as his name was wrongly shown against the post of Librarian, which post was not approved.
4. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent, the appellant submitted a representation before the Director, Secondary Education, Patna on 17-11-1983 and the Director issued directions to adjust the appellant against the post of clerk in a school in the aforesaid District. On 3-2-1984, the Director, Secondary Education, Patna directed the posting of the appellant as clerk in the High School, Virhan, Madhubani upon transfer of another teacher. However, it later transpires that there was no vacancy on the post of clerk in the district. Therefore, directions were issued to adjust the appellant as and when vacancy is available. Since there was no post of clerk in the High School Virhan, Madhubani, the appellant was made to join the office of the District Education Officer, Virhan with effect from 3-3-1984 and allotted duties and work in the aforesaid office. Subsequently, directions were issued to post the appellant as a clerk in a different school. It appears that due to lack of vacancy, the appellant was not posted in any school for some time.
5. The appellant again protested to the Director for not being given posting orders on the post of clerk. It appears that the appellant was made a rolling stone for long period of time being shunted from school to school in an effort to locate a vacancy for him. In the meantime, the appellant had not received any salary from any source. Ultimately, the appellant moved the High Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 516 of 1990 with a prayer seeking reinstatement and consequential benefits.
6. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, upon noticing the entire fact situation, accepted the plea of the appellant that he had been duly appointed as Clerk and wrongly shown as a Librarian. Consequently, directions were issued to reinstate the appellant forthwith. It was also noticed that the removal of the appellant from service was not for any fault of his. He was also directed to be given the benefit of continuity of service and other benefits. However, surprisingly, the learned Single Judge directed that he will not be entitled to any remuneration for the period when he was not in service on the ground that he had not worked. The respondent did not challenge the finding of fact recorded by the learned Single Judge. In fact, it was the appellant who challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge on the ground that he ought to have been granted full back wages for the period he had been kept out of service.
7. The appeal was dismissed LPA No. 1859 of 2010 by the High Court in limine with the following observations:
“Upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we dismiss this appeal for the reasons that it is settled law that no work no pay. Therefore, the learned Single Judge is correct in not ordering salary for the period during which the appellant was under suspension.
However, since reinstatement of the appellant, he shall be paid salary regularly as directed by the learned Single Judge.”
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are constrained to observe that the High Court failed to examine the matter in detail in declining the relief to the appellant. In fact, a perusal of the aforesaid short order passed by the Division Bench would clearly show that the High Court had not even acquainted itself with the fact that the appellant was kept out of service due to a mistake. He was not kept out of service on account of suspension, as wrongly recorded by the High Court. The conclusion is, therefore, obvious that the appellant could not have been denied the benefit of back wages on the ground that he had not worked for the period when he was illegally kept out of service. In our opinion, the appellant was entitled to be paid full back wages for the period he was kept out of service.
9. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order LPA No. 1859 of 2010 passed by the Division Bench is quashed and set aside. The appellant has already been reinstated in service. The respondents are, however, directed to pay to the appellant the entire full back wages from the period he was kept out of service till reinstatement. The full back wages shall be paid to the appellant with 9% interest. Let the amount be paid to the appellant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Alert