Court Rejects Medical Leave Claim for Initial Absence but Confirms Duty Period and Pay Benefits for Administrative Denial of Duty Resumption
In a significant judgment dated July 16, 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Subhendu Samanta) delivered a nuanced verdict in the writ petition filed by the Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj (RWS) Division, Chittoor, challenging the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's order on service regularization of a government employee, B. Narasimha Raju.
The respondent, a Mechanic Grade-I who joined service in 1973, was absent from duty from June 1, 1985, to July 16, 1987, without formally applying for leave. He submitted a medical certificate claiming ill-health and sought permission to join duty on July 17, 1987, supported by a fitness certificate. However, the department did not admit him back to duty and referred him to a Medical Board. The Medical Board, after examination in July 1988, found no medical infirmity to justify his absence, labeling the employee a malingerer. Despite this, the employee was not allowed to resume work until May 11, 1999, following a tribunal order.
The Tribunal, in two connected Original Applications (O.A.No.7689/1999 and O.A.No.6692/2000), directed the department to regularize the period from June 1, 1985, to July 16, 1987, as medical leave and treat the subsequent period from July 17, 1987, to May 11, 1999, as on duty, granting pay scale benefits accordingly.
Challenging this, the Executive Engineer contended the absence from June 1985 to July 1987 was unauthorized and deliberate, with no medical justification, hence no pay or leave should be granted for this period. They argued the "no work no pay" principle should apply throughout, as the employee had not performed any duties for almost 14 years.
The High Court carefully analyzed the facts and held that the initial period (June 1, 1985, to July 16, 1987) could not be regularized as medical leave due to the lack of any leave application and contradictory medical evidence. The court emphasized that the employee failed to provide adequate justification and did not challenge the medical board's findings. Therefore, the claim for payment and leave for this period was rejected.
Conversely, for the period from July 17, 1987, to May 11, 1999, the court upheld the Tribunal's view that the absence was caused by administrative reasons, as the employee was willing and fit to resume duty but was not permitted by the department. No disciplinary action or termination proceedings were initiated during this period, indicating the employee's service was not severed. Accordingly, the court ruled that the "no work no pay" principle did not apply, directing the department to treat this period as "on duty" and extend all pay scale benefits, including the revised pay scales from 1986 and subsequent revisions.
The writ petition was allowed in part, modifying the Tribunal's order to deny medical leave and pay for the initial absence but confirming the regularization and pay benefits for the prolonged administrative denial period.
This judgment clarifies the application of service law principles in cases of unauthorized absence followed by administrative denial of duty resumption, balancing employer authority and employee rights.
Bottom Line:
Service Law - Absence from duty without leave - Whether "no work no pay" principle can be applied when employee was not allowed to join duty due to administrative reasons.
Statutory provision(s): Service Law Principles, No Work No Pay Rule, Administrative Tribunal Act (implied)
