Principle of "No-Work No-Pay" cannot override an already issued government order
Allahabad High Court Upholds Tribunal's Order: No-Work No-Pay Principle Overturned for Dr. Sneh Lata Gupta. Government's Review Application Dismissed; Tribunal's Ruling on Unauthorized Absence Period Upheld
In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court upheld the State Public Services Tribunal's order, which granted full service benefits to Dr. Sneh Lata Gupta for a period of absence from work, despite the State Government's challenge. The Division Bench, comprising Hon’ble Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Rajeev Misra, dismissed the review application filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, which sought to apply the "No-Work No-Pay" principle to Dr. Gupta's period of absence from duty.
The case originated from a controversy dating back to 1985 when Dr. Gupta, a Medical Officer in the Medical & Health Services of Uttar Pradesh, was prevented by departmental authorities from joining her duty despite repeated requests. The State Public Services Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of Dr. Gupta, acknowledging that her absence was not unauthorized and granting her full service benefits, including salary for the disputed period. The Tribunal found that the State Government's later stance, which applied the "No-Work No-Pay" principle, was inconsistent with its own earlier order that treated the period as on-duty. Consequently, the review petition filed by the State Government was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court.
The Division Bench, comprising Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Rajeev Misra, emphasized that the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. The Court determined that the State Government's petition sought to challenge findings that were neither disputed during the original petition nor were they part of the review application. The Court found the State Government's stance to be inconsistent and lacking merit, thus upholding the Tribunal's decision.
Dr. Sneh Lata Gupta was initially appointed as a Medical Officer in 1975. She had taken earned leave from September 1984 and, despite her attempts to rejoin duty, was prevented by the departmental authorities until 2002. An inquiry conducted by a committee of three doctors concluded that Dr. Gupta was not at fault for her prolonged absence, as she was not permitted to return to duty and there was no evidence of her engaging in private practice during this period.
The Allahabad High Court's Division Bench, consisting of Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Rajeev Misra, concluded that the State Government's position was contradictory. The government had previously issued an order treating Dr. Gupta's absence as on-duty, which conflicted with their later attempt to apply the "No-Work No-Pay" principle. The Bench found no error in the Tribunal's judgment that warranted interference, resulting in the dismissal of the State's review petition.
The Court's decision reaffirms the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which is confined to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, and cannot be used to present additional evidence not part of the original record or to seek an alternate view on the matter.
Bottom Line:
Review of a judicial order cannot be sought on the basis of additional material that is not part of the original record. The principle of "No-Work No-Pay" cannot override an already issued and valid government order granting service benefits for a disputed period of absence.
Statutory provision(s): Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 47 Rule 1, Article 226 of the Constitution
State Of U.P. v. Dr. Sneh Lata Gupta, (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2792970
