The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a government employee who remained absent for more than two years without submitting a leave application could not have that period treated as medical leave. The Court also held that the principle of “no work, no pay” could not be applied to a later period when the employee was willing to resume duty but was not permitted to join by the authorities.
A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta delivered the judgment on July 16, 2026, in Writ Petition No. 6584 of 2006.
Background of the Case
B. Narasimha Raju, a Mechanic Grade-I, had joined the department in 1973. He remained absent from duty from June 1, 1985 to July 16, 1987. According to the record, he later submitted a joining report with a medical fitness certificate on July 17, 1987.
The authorities did not permit him to resume duty and referred him for medical examination. The Medical Board examined him in July 1988 and found his cardiovascular and eye conditions normal. It also did not find hypertension as stated in the medical certificate produced by him.
Following the Medical Board proceedings, he was not allowed to resume duty. After proceedings before the Administrative Tribunal, he was ultimately issued a posting order on May 11, 1999 and joined duty the same day.Court’s Observation
The High Court examined the two periods separately.
For the period from June 1, 1985 to July 16, 1987, the Bench noted that no leave application had been submitted. The medical explanation subsequently given by the employee was also considered in light of the Medical Board's report, which had not been challenged.
The Court observed:
“Thus, it is aptly clear that petitioner/applicant was absent from his duties since 01.06.1985 to 16.07.1987 without any leave application or without any reason of his medical illness.”
The Bench further held that there was no basis to conclude that the employee was unable to submit a leave application throughout the entire period. It therefore ruled that this period could not be treated as medical leave and that he was not entitled to payment for it.
For the subsequent period, from July 17, 1987 to May 11, 1999, the Court reached a different conclusion. It noted that the employee had attempted to resume duty but was referred for medical examination instead. The authorities also failed to place any document showing that he had been informed about the result of the Medical Board.
The Court said:
“For the entire period from 17.07.1987 to 11.05.1999, the petitioner was not at fault to perform his duties rather he was not permitted by the present petitioners to join duties.”
The Bench consequently held that the “no work, no pay” principle was not applicable to this period because the employee had not been allowed to resume work by the authorities.
Decision
The Division Bench partly allowed the writ petition. It declined to sustain the Tribunal's direction treating June 1, 1985 to July 16, 1987 as medical leave and held that no payment was due for that period.
However, the Court upheld the Tribunal's direction concerning July 17, 1987 to May 11, 1999, holding that the period was to be treated as duty since the employee had not been permitted to join.
The authorities were directed to comply with the Tribunal's directions, subject to the observations made by the High Court.
There was no order as to costs.
-300x169.webp)
