GANESH CH. HAZARIKA Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(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".