Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 3918

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

Rajvanti Jain – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. And Ors. – Respondents
Writ A. No. 55935 of 2016
Decided On : 11-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Jitendra Kumar Srivastava
For the Respondents: C.S.C., Bhupendra Kumar Yadav, Suresh Kumar Maurya

When an employee is prevented from working due to illegal administrative action, the "no work, no pay" principle is inapplicable. Reinstatement acts as the restoration of original service status, entitling the employee to full salary, seniority, and consequential benefits from the date of the arbitrary termination.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Wrongful termination - Reinstatement of employee - Doctrine of "no work, no pay" - Applicability.

(B) Where an employee is prevented from performing duties due to wrongful or illegal administrative actions, the doctrine of "no work, no pay" is inapplicable. The employee is entitled to salary and consequential benefits for the duration the employee was kept away from service due to the employer's defaults. (Paras 25, 27, 36)

(C) Continuity of Service - Reinstatement following the setting aside of a termination order relates back to the date of illegal severance unless specifically directed otherwise. The employee is entitled to seniority, increments, and service benefits as if the employment had never been interrupted. (Paras 38, 42, 44, 45)

(D) Appellate Proceedings - Pendency of an appeal without an interim stay does not justify non-compliance with a judicial order or the withholding of emoluments due to an employee who was ready and willing to work. (Paras 46, 47)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, upon being appointed, had her employment terminated following the cancellation of her professional credentials. The judicial authority later quashed the termination, ordering reinstatement and consequential benefits, while explicitly limiting back wages for a specific period. The employer appealed this decision, which was subsequently dismissed. Upon reinstatement, the petitioner was denied salary and seniority for the interim period between the initial judicial order and her actual rejoining, leading to the current challenge.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the petitioner was prevented from working by the arbitrary and unjust actions of the employer. Since the termination was found legally void and no interim stay existed during the appeal, the petitioner is entitled to salary and restored seniority for the period of her forced absence.

Issues: Whether an employee is entitled to salary and continuity of service, including seniority, for the period between a judicial order quashing termination and their actual reinstatement, where the employer caused the delay.

Ratio Decidendi: Reinstatement following a finding of illegal termination operates retrospectively to the date such termination was declared invalid. When an employee is kept from duty by the employer's actions, the rule of "no work, no pay" is excluded, necessitating the restoration of all service benefits to maintain the employee's status as it existed before the illegal act.

Result: Petition allowed; respondents directed to release salary for the disputed period and grant full continuity of service and seniority from the initial date of appointment.

Table of Content
1. nature of writ petition and prayer for relief. (Para 1 , 2)
2. the historical context of the petitioner's appointment, illegal termination, and subsequent litigation history. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. conflicting claims regarding the entitlement to salary and seniority for the non-working period pending appeals. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. court's identification of the legal issues regarding salary, seniority, and back wages post-reinstatement. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. application of the exception to the 'no work no pay' doctrine where employer prevented employee from working. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
6. determining the continuity of service and back-dating seniority to the initial date of appointment. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)
7. final order granting reinstated benefits excluding specific back wages previously denied. (Para 49 , 50)

JUDGMENT :

MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Hare Ram, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Suresh Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 07.11.2016 passed by respondent no.3.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 to grant promotional pay scale to the petitioner in revised pay scale (6^th Pay Commission) in view of her date of substantive appointment.

(iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was admitted to B.T.C course in Zila Shiksha and Prashikshan Sansthan, Agra. She passed the B.T.C course examination in 1991, securing second division in the written examination and first division in class teaching and a mark sheet was issued to her on 05.01.1992. The petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in accordance with law. The appointment letter accordingly was issued on 11.09.1997, appointing her as an Assistant Teacher in Tundla on probation for a period of one year.

4. Pursuant to the said appointment, she joined her duties on 23.09.1997 and performed the functions satisfactorily. The petitioner worked from 23.09.1997 to 24.07.1998 but salary was only paid to her in the month of February, 1998, therefore, she filed a Writ Petition No.9407 of 1998, which was disposed of with the direction to the authorities to decide her representation.

5. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by order dated 16.07.1998 on the ground that petitioner had only obtained 19 marks out of 75 marks in Hindi theory paper in the B.T.C examination, as per the mark sheet which was issued to her on 05.01.1992, therefore, she was not eligible for being appointed as an Assistant teacher.

6. The aforesaid order came to be challenged by means of Writ Petition No.33582 of 1998 and the Court concerned, after perusal of the records, allowed the petition by order dated 12.02.2008, quashing the impugned order vide which the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled.

7. In the aforesaid petition, the respondents were further directed to restore the petitioner’s B.T.C. certificate and all other natural consequences of setting aside of the order were to follow, including the reinstatement of the petitioner in service. It was specifically mentioned that back wages would not be allowed to her for the period during which she had not worked.

8. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 12.02.2008, passed in Writ Petition No.33582 of 1998, the respondent i.e. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari filed Special Appeal No.1127 of 2010 which was dismissed vide order dated 2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2025 Supreme(All) 3918

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABADMANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. Rajvanti Jain – PetitionerVersusState of U.P. And Ors. – RespondentsWrit A. No. 55935 of 2016Decided On : 11-08-2025

Cases Referred (5)

Judicial Analysis

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

Rajvanti Jain – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. And Ors. – Respondents
Writ A. No. 55935 of 2016
Decided On : 11-08-2025