No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“When the Employer Is at Fault, Employee Cannot Be Denied Salary”, Delivering a judgment with far-reaching implications in service law and the rights of disabled employees, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an employee wrongfully dismissed from service despite a stay on conviction is entitled to full pay and allowances for the period he was forced out of service.

Justice Namit Kumar, setting aside the denial of back wages, ruled that “the principle of ‘no work no pay’ would not be attracted where the employee was willing to work and was illegally prevented from doing so by the employer”, declaring the dismissal and the subsequent denial of salary as unjustified and contrary to law.

The Court further held that a successor-in-office has no power to review a lawful order passed by his predecessor, unless expressly authorized by statute, terming the State’s conduct as a clear violation of natural justice.

“Successor Has No Authority to Undo What Predecessor Did Lawfully” — Review Order Passed Without Hearing is Void in Law

The case revolved around Hardev Singh Sodhi, a person with more than 75% disability, who was appointed in 2001 as Block Development and Panchayat Officer under the handicapped quota. In 2004, an FIR was registered against him under Sections 467, 468, and 471 IPC. He was convicted in 2012 and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, but his conviction and sentence were stayed by the Appellate Court on 11.03.2014.

Despite this, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 30.05.2014, ignoring the fact that both conviction and sentence had been stayed, and without initiating any departmental proceedings. The dismissal was later challenged and set aside by the High Court in 2017 with a direction to the State to reconsider the matter.

Following the remand, the competent authority, acknowledging the stay on conviction and Supreme Court guidelines extending retirement age for PwD employees to 60, passed a fresh order on 17.10.2018, reinstating the petitioner with full service benefits till 31.05.2015, the date he would have superannuated.

However, in an unexpected reversal, the successor officer, without issuing a show cause notice or providing a hearing, reviewed and reversed this order on 21.11.2019, denying the petitioner back wages for the intervening period, citing “no work no pay.”

“A Person on Probation Under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act Cannot Be Disqualified from Service” — Court Reiterates Protection of Employees Post-Conviction Stay

The High Court rejected the reasoning behind the review order, noting that the basis of dismissal never existed in law once the conviction was stayed. It held that “even though the petitioner stood convicted under Sections 468 and 471 IPC, the grant of probation under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act protected him from any disqualification.”

The Court emphasized that Section 12 removes disqualification resulting from conviction where the person is released on probation, and since no departmental proceedings were conducted either, the initial dismissal stood vitiated.

“The petitioner was kept out of service due to the illegal and unjustified act of the employer. He cannot be made to suffer for that,” the Court observed, relying on the judgment in Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India (2015), where the Supreme Court had categorically held that “no work no pay” is not an inviolable rule and must yield to the facts of each case.

“Successor Reviewing Predecessor’s Final Order Without Legal Authority is an Abuse of Power” — Court Sets Aside Review Action

Justice Namit Kumar found the review order of 21.11.2019 unsustainable on multiple grounds. He noted: “The successor in office cannot undo what the predecessor has lawfully done, unless there is a statutory provision permitting such review. There exists no such power in the present case. The act of reviewing a concluded order without notice or hearing is a clear violation of principles of natural justice.”

The Court cited its own earlier judgments in Amit Kumar Chakraborty v. HPGCL, Hoshiar Singh v. State of Haryana, and Gaganpreet Singh v. Punjab State Grains Procurement Corp., all of which held that administrative successors have no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over their predecessors’ decisions in the absence of enabling statutory authority.

It further observed that the 2019 order was not only substantively unlawful but also procedurally defective, being passed without hearing the petitioner.

“The State Cannot Hold Back Pensionary Benefits Indefinitely Without Justification” — Interest Awarded for Delayed Gratuity and Pension

The Court also dealt with the inordinate delay in releasing the petitioner’s gratuity, pension, and leave encashment, which were paid nearly five to six years after retirement, despite repeated representations.

Justice Kumar held that “the State, having wrongfully retained money due to the petitioner, must pay compensation in the form of interest”, placing reliance on the Full Bench decision in A.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab (1997), which held:

“If the State commits default in disbursing pension and retiral dues, the retiree gets a right to be compensated. The only way to compensate is to pay interest for the period of delay on the amount that was due on the date of retirement.”

The Court followed this principle and further endorsed the reasoning in J.S. Cheema v. State of Haryana where it was observed that “interest is rent for the use of someone else’s money; delay, even if unintentional, attracts liability.”

Full Back Wages With Interest Directed, Review Order Quashed

Summing up the legal and factual analysis, the Court held:

“The impugned order dated 21.11.2019 is set aside. The petitioner is entitled to pay and allowances for the period from 01.06.2014 to 31.05.2015, along with interest at 7% per annum. He is also entitled to 7% interest on the delayed pensionary benefits from 01.09.2015 till the date of actual payment.”

The State has been directed to calculate and release all amounts due within three months, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to take further legal recourse for enforcement.

This landmark decision reasserts crucial constitutional and administrative law principles — that an employee cannot be penalized for an employer’s unlawful act, that disabled persons are entitled to the full protection of service benefits, and that natural justice is not a formality but a foundational requirement of administrative action.

The High Court has once again made it clear that “no work no pay” is not a shield for the State to escape liability when the employee was not at fault. In matters involving fundamental service rights, especially for persons with disabilities, the Court has reaffirmed that equity, legality, and fairness must guide State action.

Date of Decision: December 9, 2025