Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hakim Singh Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 2 July, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT PETITION No. 79 of 2016
HAKIM SINGH RAJPUT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.S. Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Jitesh Sharma - GA appearing on behalf of State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on 23/06/2025
Delivered on 02/07/2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India has been filed feeling aggrieved by the order dated
10.12.2015 passed by respondent no.3, whereby in compliance of
the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.2791/2007 decided on
19.08.2015, whereby the period from 19.06.2007 to 31.05.2010
was held to be reckoned for the purposes of calculation of the
retiral dues, but for the said period no salary was paid on the
principle of no work no pay.
2. The aforesaid order has been assailed on the ground that it
is contrary to the earlier order passed by this Court in the
aforesaid writ petition, wherein after setting aside the order of
dismissal, the petitioner was reinstated with all consequential
benefits, but ignoring the aforesaid directives, the impugned order
has been passed rejecting the representation. Thus, alleging the
action of the respondents to be highly objectionable, the present
petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the
order passed by this Court in W.P. No.2791/2007 dated
19.08.2015 has argued that the order dated 19.06.2007 passed by
SDO, whereby penalty of dismissal from service was imposed
upon the petitioner, was set aside which automatically resulted in
reinstatement of the petitioner and reinstatement as it implies
would include all consequential benefits and the period for which
the petitioner was forcibly kept out of employment due to the
order of dismissal, cannot be reckoned as period of no work and
no pay and the salary for the aforesaid period is required to be
paid to the petitioner, but without considering the aforesaid, the
order has been passed which is contrary to the order passed by
this Court in the earlier round of litigation. On the aforesaid
ground, learned counsel has prayed that the petition be allowed
and while setting aside the order dated 10.12.2015, the
respondents be directed to pay the salary to the petitioner w.e.f.
19.06.2007, the date of his dismissal till 31.05.2010, the date of
his retirement and also grant the consequential benefits including
gratuity accordingly.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State
submitted that since the petitioner after his dismissal from service
had not worked for a single day till his retirement in the year,
2010 and only in pursuance to the order of this Court passed in
W.P. No.2791/2007 dated 19.08.2015 that the order of dismissal
was quashed, the consideration of the representation of the
petitioner for non-grant of salary for the period after he was
terminated till his attaining the age of supperannuation was rightly
considered on the basis of no work no pay, thus, no infirmity or
illegality can be said to have been committed. Thus, the petition
being sans merit is liable to be dismissed.
5. In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed
reliance in the matters of Ramlal Solanki vs. The State of M.P
and Ors passed in W.A. No.1421/2023 dated 19.03.2024, in the
matter of Vijay Singh Bhadoriya vs. The State of M.P and Ors
passed in W. P. No.11412/2008 dated 06.05.2025 and in the
matter of Ajit Singh vs The State of M.P and Ors passed in W.P.
No.19180/2019 dated 29.02.2025.
6. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record.
7. In Deepali Gundu Surwase vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak
& Ors reported in 2013 (10) SCC 324, the Hon'ble Apex Court
while dealing with the case wherein an employee of a school was
terminated and the said termination was set aside by the school
tribunal and reinstatement with full backwages was directed, upon
challenge against the tribunals order, the quashing of termination
was upheld by the High Court, but the question of backwages was
set aside, while considering the case of Hindustan Tin Works
Pvt. Ltd vs Empkoyees Of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt Ltd
reported in 1979 (2) SCC 80 has observed that when termination
is found to be invalid, then award of full backwages is the normal
rule though further therein it is noted that even on the basis of
Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd (supra) there is no strait-jacket formula
for awarding relief of back wages.
8. In the aforesaid matter the Apex Court further analyzed
various other decisions on this issues including J.K. Synthetics
Ltd. vs K.P.Agrawal & Anr reported in 2007 (2) SCC 433 and
culled out the position as follows:-
vii) The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v.
K.P. Agrawal (supra) that on reinstatement the
employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service
as of right is contrary to the ratio of the judgments of
three Judge Benches referred to hereinabove and
cannot be treated as good law. This part of the
judgment is also against the very concept of
reinstatement of an employee/workman.
9. In a very recent judgment in the matter of Salim Ali Centre
for Ornithology & Natural History, Coimbatore and Another
vs Dr. Mathew K. Sebastian passed in Special Leave to Appeal
No.5218/2022 dated 04.04.2022 in para 7 has held as under:-
7. As far as the submission on behalf of the
petitioners that even on the principle of "no work
no pay", the writ petitioner shall not be entitled
to back wages is concerned, the said principle
shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on
hand, where the employee remained unemployed
due to the stay order granted by the appellate
court. It was the management who preferred the
appeal and at the instance of the management,
there was an order of stay against reinstatement
as ordered by the learned Single Judge and the
appeal came to be dismissed and consequently
the stay came to be vacated in the year 2010.
Therefore, the employee/writ
petitioner/respondent herein cannot be denied the
back wages for no fault of his. Therefore, the
principle of "no work no pay" shall not be
applicable in such a situation.
10. From the aforesaid enunciations the legal position which is
culled out is that in cases of wrongful termination of service,
reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the
normal rule and the courts must always keep in view that in the
cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrong doer is
the employer and the sufferer is the employee/workman and there
is no justification to give a premium to the employer of his wrong
doings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the
employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages. The
Courts should also bear in mind that in most of these cases, the
employer is in an advantageous position vis-à-vis the employee or
workman. He can avail the services of best legal brain for
prolonging the agony of the sufferer i.e. the employee or
workman, who can ill-afford the luxury of spending money on a
lawyer with certain amount of fame. Therefore, in such cases it
would be prudent to adopt the course suggested in Hindustan Tin
Works (P) Ltd(supra).
11. Reverting to the case in hand, this Court finds that while
allowing W.P. No.2791/2007 it was held that the authority, who
has passed the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service
was not competent to review the earlier punishment order dated
12.07.2001, whereby two increments of the petitioner were
withheld without cumulative effect and the order dated
19.06.2007, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service
was quashed. This Court when had held the very order of
dismissal of the petitioner from service to be illegal, without
jurisdiction, there would be no justification to give premium to the
respondents of their wrong doings as it was due to the act of the
respondents that the petitioner was kept out of service for the
aforesaid period and was not out of his own choice.
12. In view of the aforesaid fact, this Court has no hesitation to
hold that denial of backwages to the petitioner for the period from
19.06.2007 to 31.05.2010 was bad in law.
13. As a result, the petition is allowed, the order dated
10.12.2015 is hereby set aside, the respondents are directed to pay
salary for the period from 19.06.2007 to 31.05.2010 with an
interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum.
14. The respondents are also directed to give all the
consequential benefits attached to the post which the petitioner
was entitled to after his reinstatement, if not yet paid. The
consequential monatory benefits if still unpaid, shall also carry
interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum.
15. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the
respondent/State do not lay any analogy, therefore, are not
applicable to the present case.
(Milind Ramesh Phadke)
Judge
chandni/
CHAN
DNI
2.5.4.20=4a0af498d89b2d94b
5abcc1b4614d98feabd8b7822
8e0ec6eab9a0bd4e622c09,
ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH AT
NARW
GWALIOR,CID - 7022823,
postalCode=474001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=8c306c586aaa4
3d19976f07886865f6fac4a246
ARIYA
eee6bccd256acdfce3dcf944f,
cn=CHANDNI NARWARIYA
Date: 2025.07.02 18:07:09
+05'30'
