WA/1744/2024 of G. CHANDU Vs THE DIRECTOR GENERAL on 25 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN,J.) The unsuccessful petitioner before the Writ Court is the appellant herein.

2. The appellant filed the writ petition seeking to quash the impugned order dated 02.02.2022

in

Reference

No. E-42099/CISF/CPCL/PA/CC/O.M/2022/657 passed by the 3rd respondent and to direct the 1st respondent to pay arrears of salary from January 2013 to May 2019.

3. It is the case of the appellant before the Writ Court that he was appointed as a CISF Constable on 14.03.2002 and underwent training at CISF, KRTC, Mundali, Odisha, from 14.03.2002 for eight months. Subsequently, the petitioner was terminated from service in December 2012. Challenging the said termination order, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 38098 of 2012 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by order dated 10.12.2018, directed the respondents to reconsider the order of termination on the basis of the representation given by the writ petitioner. In compliance with the said order, the petitioner was reinstated into service and joined duty on 18.05.2019. The petitioner was then transferred from Bilaspur to Chennai in June 2021. In the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks salary for the period

WA No. 1744 of 2024

from January 2013 to May 2019.

4. The petitioner submits that he was paid a monthly basic salary of Rs. 22,400/- till January 2022, whereas his batch mates were drawing a basic pay of Rs.29,300/-. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation seeking fixation of pay in consonance with that of his juniors, and the same was not considered. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 23827 of 2021 before this Court and obtained an order dated 02.11.2021. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner's salary was re-fixed on par with his juniors together with seven increments from 2019 till February 2022.

5. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he was not paid salary from January 2013 to May 2019, when the order of termination was in force, which was subsequently recalled by the respondents. On the above submissions, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking salary for the period from January 2013 to May 2019, challenging the order dated 02.02.2022. In the said order dated 02.02.2022, it has been stated as follows: ‘’08. WHEREAS, as per clarification issued by CISF HQrs.

New

Delhi

vide

letter No.V-14013/264/2021/SS-27453(E)177 dated 22.01.2022, the intervening period from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement in service (i.e. the period from

WA No. 1744 of 2024

24.11.2012 to 17.05.2019) has been regularized without any back wages on the basis of the Principle of "No Work No Pay". However, the petitioner will have the continuity in service along with notional increments etc. vide CISF Unit CPCL Manali USO Part-II No. 11/2022 issued under letter No. (534) dated 28.01.2022. Accordingly, the Petitioner's Basic Pay has been fixed at Rs.29,300/-. He is not entitled for back wages for the period from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement in service on the principle of "No Work No Pay". Further, the bill for arrears of pay and allowances w.e.f. 18.05.2019 to 31.01.2022 has been cleared by RPAO Chennai which was submitted by this office vide bill No. 412/Estt./NPS/2021-22 (RPAO CP No.00000437) dated 28.01.2022. The petitioner has already been allotted with Seniority No. '120989-A' at par with his batch mates vide FHQ, New Delhi letter No. E-35016/12/2019/Estt-I/192 dated 21.02.2020. Therefore, the Basic pay and seniority of the petitioner has been fixed at par with his batch mates appointed in CISF during April-2012.’’

6. The respondents, objecting to the claim of the petitioner, contended that the period for which the petitioner claimed salary is legally unsustainable in view of the fact that the termination order was in force during that period, the petitioner was not in service, and the principle of 'No Work No Pay' is squarely applicable. The reinstatement was ordered with notional increments and continuity of service alone.

WA No. 1744 of 2024

7. The Writ Court, on careful consideration, came to the conclusion that the finding of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was not altered by the department, and reinstatement was ordered only on the basis of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Others reported in 2016 (6) MLJ 94. On that basis, the Writ Court dismissed the writ petition.

8. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondent.

9. The reinstatement of the petitioner was pursuant to the order passed in W.P. No. 38098 of 2012 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The direction in the said writ petition was only to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and to reconsider the impugned termination order dated 24.11.2012 as per the guidelines laid down in Avtar Singh (supra). Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated on 29.04.2019. The termination order was set aside by the authority, and reinstatement was ordered without back wages but with continuity of service. When the petitioner was not working during the period of termination and admittedly the termination order was issued on the ground that a criminal case was pending, the claim of the petitioner seeking wages for the period of termination is not legally sustainable.

WA No. 1744 of 2024

10. In this regard, the Supreme Court in the case of Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore reported in (1996) 11 SCC 603, has held as follows: ‘’3. The reinstatement of the petitioner into the service has already been ordered by the High Court. The only question is: whether he is entitled to back wages? It was his conduct of involving himself in the crime that was taken into account for his not being in service of the respondent. Consequent upon his acquittal, he is entitled to reinstatement for the reason that his service was terminated on the basic of the conviction by operation of proviso to the statutory rules applicable the situation. The question of back wages would be considered only if the respondents have taken action by way of disciplinary proceeding and the action was found to be unsustainable in law and he was unlawfully prevented from discharging the duties. In that context, his conduct becomes relevant, Each case requires to be considered in his own backdrops. In this case, since the petitioner had involved himself in a crime, though he was later acquitted, he had disabled himself from rendering the service on account of conviction and incarceration in jail. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to payment of back wages. The learned single judge and the Division Bench have not committed any error of law warranting interference.’’

11. In another case, the Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. Jaipal Singh reported in (2004) 1 SCC 121, has held as follows: ‘’4. On a careful consideration of the matter and the materials on record, including the judgment and orders brought to our notice, we are of the view that it is well accepted that an order rejecting a special leave petition at the threshold without detailed reasons therefore does not constitute any declaration of law by this Court or constitute a binding precedent. Per contra,

WA No. 1744 of 2024

the decision relied upon for the appellant is one on merits and for reasons specifically recorded therefore and operates as a binding precedent as well. On going through the same, we are in respectful agreement with the view taken in [1996] 11 SCC 603 (supra). If prosecution, which ultimately resulted in acquittal of the person concerned was at the behest or by department itself, perhaps different considerations may arise. On the other hand, if as a citizen the employee or a public servant got involved in a criminal case and it after initial conviction by the trial court, he gets acquittal on appeal subsequently, the department cannot in any manner be found fault with for having kept him out of service, since the law obliges, a person convicted of an offence to be so kept out and not to be retained in service. Consequently, the reasons given in the decision relied upon, for the appellants are not only convincing but are in consonance with reasonableness as well. Though exception taken to that part of the order directing re-instatement cannot be sustained and the respondent has to be re-instated, in service, for the reason that the earlier discharge was on account of those criminal proceedings and conviction only, the appellants are well within their rights to deny back wages to the respondent for the period he was not in service. The appellants cannot be made liable to pay for the period for which they could not avail of the services of the respondent. The High Court, in our view, committed a grave error, in allowing back wages also, without adverting to all such relevant aspects and considerations. Consequently, the order of the High Court in so far as it directed payment of back wages are liable to be and is hereby set aside.’’

12. In view of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court as above, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any monetary benefits for the period

WA No. 1744 of 2024

during which he was not working, while the order of termination was in force.

13. In view of the above said findings, there is no legal or factual ground to interfere with the judgment of the Writ Court. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 30-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rli

WA No. 1744 of 2024

To

1. The Director General CISF, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

2. The Group Commandant CISF, Group Head Quarters, Rajaji Bhawan, Besant Nagar, Chennai.

3. The Deputy Commandant CISF Unit, CISF Manali, Chennai.

WA No. 1744 of 2024

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. rli Pre-delivery judgment in WA No. 1744 of 2024 30-09-2026