Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 279 (GAU)

Ganesh Ch. Hazarika v. United Bank of India

2014-03-06

BROJENDRA PRASAD KATAKEY

body2014
Judgment Brojendra Prasad Katakey, J. 1. Heard Mr. D.K. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/Bank. This is a very unfortunate case where a sub-staff of the respondents/Bank, namely, the United Bank of India, has not been allowed to work with effect from 22nd May, 2006, basically on the ground that initially he was arrested in connection with Demow Police Station Case No. 56/2006 registered under Section 302 IPC and because of the pressure exerted by the local public for not allowing the petitioner to resume his duties. 2. It has been contended by Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner that since the respondent Bank did not place the petitioner either under suspension or any disciplinary action taken against him, it cannot debar the petitioner from resuming his duties as sub-staff, because of the pressure exerted by the public. It has also been submitted that during pendency of the writ petition, however, the petitioner was allowed to resume his duties vide order dated 29th September, 2012 and hence, the petitioner is now discharging his duties as sub-staff in Bongaon, Majuli Branch of the United Bank of India in the district of Jorhat. The learned counsel further submits that since the respondent authorities have illegally debarred the petitioner from resuming his duties from 22nd May, 2006 till 29th September, 2012, he is entitled to the service benefit for this entire period including salary, which, therefore, may directed to be paid to the petitioner. 3. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/Bank, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner was initially taken into custody in connection with the aforesaid Demow Police Station Case No. 56/2006 and thereafter, he was not allowed to resume his duties because of the pressure exerted by the Circle Officer as well as the wife of the petitioner and also the local public, who, however, was allowed to resume his duties vide order dated 29th September, 2012. The learned counsel further submits that since the petitioner did not discharge his duties from 22nd May, 2006 to 29th September, 2012, whatever may be the reason, the petitioner is not entitled to salary for the aforesaid period on the principle of "no work no pay". 4. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was taken into custody in connection with Demow Police Station Case No. 56/2006 and thereafter, on being released from custody though the petitioner reported for duty on 22nd May, 2006, he was, however, not allowed to resume his duties by the respondents/Bank. Neither any order of suspension nor any disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner, according to the respondents themselves, has not been allowed to resume the duties because of the pressure exerted by the Circle Officer, the wife of the petitioner as well as the local public. 5. It is surprising how the respondent Bank could debar its sub-staff to work because of the pressure exerted by the public or Circle Officer or his wife. Had the respondent/Bank any problem in allowing him to resume duties in his place of posting, i.e. Demow Chariali Branch, it could have transferred the petitioner to another place from his original place of posting, namely, Demow Chariali Branch under Sivasagar district, as has been done by the subsequent order dated 29th September, 2012 allowing the petitioner to resume his duties in another Branch in the district of Jorhat. 6. The respondents/Bank even after acquittal of the petitioner from the charges levelled under Section 302 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar in Sessions Case No. 15(SS)/2007 vide judgment dated 27th November, 2009, did not bother to allow the petitioner to resume duties. 7. Since the petitioner has not been allowed to resume his duties for no fault on his part and there being no order of suspension and no disciplinary proceeding having been initiated, the petitioner cannot be deprived from the service benefit for the said period from 22nd May, 2006 to 29th September, 2012, which includes the salary for the said period. The principle of "no work no pay" is not applicable in the case in hand, in view of the facts narrated above. 8. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed directing the respondent Bank, more particularly, the respondent No. 2, to grant all service benefits to the petitioner and to release the salary of the petitioner from 22nd May, 2006 to 29th September, 2012, within a period of 2(two) months from today. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. 8. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed directing the respondent Bank, more particularly, the respondent No. 2, to grant all service benefits to the petitioner and to release the salary of the petitioner from 22nd May, 2006 to 29th September, 2012, within a period of 2(two) months from today. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. Copy of the aforesaid order dated 29th September, 2012, as placed on record by Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents allowing the petitioner to resume his duty, is placed on record. Petition allowed.