Rajesh Prasad Pandey vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Service Law - Appointment and Backwages - Retrospective seniority granted upon finding that non-appointment was due to a faulty merit list prepared by the employer - Principle of “no work no pay” cannot be applied in a mechanical manner in a case where the employee was ready and willing to serve but was prevented from doing so due to the illegal action of the employer (Para 17) - Once retrospective seniority has been granted on the premise that the appellants were wrongfully denied appointment at the relevant time, denial of arrears of salary for the intervening period amounts to incomplete and inconsistent implementation of binding judicial directions (Para 16).

(B) Equality - Denial of similar relief granted to other employees in an identical recruitment process, where the judgment has attained finality up to the highest court, results in discriminatory treatment and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India (Para 18).

Facts of the case:
The appellants, who were long-term daily rated employees, were selected for appointment to a post but were not appointed due to the employer's use of a district-wise merit list. This method was subsequently declared illegal by the court, a finding that attained finality. The appellants were eventually appointed after the preparation of a state-wise merit list. While the employer granted them retrospective seniority from the date their juniors were appointed, it denied them arrears of salary for the intervening period. A single judge had previously dismissed their claim, holding that they were not entitled to backwages as they were not appointed in the year of the initial selection process.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the non-appointment of the appellants was not attributable to any fault or disqualification on their part but was solely due to the erroneous action of the employer. Since retrospective seniority had already been granted, the denial of monetary benefits was inconsistent and arbitrary. Furthermore, a similar case arising from the same recruitment process had already been decided in favor of the employees, with the decision attaining finality in the highest court.

Issues: Whether employees are entitled to backwages and consequential monetary benefits when they were denied appointment due to the employer's illegal act, despite being granted retrospective seniority.

Ratio Decidendi: The principle of "no work no pay" is inapplicable when the employer's illegal actions prevent a willing and eligible candidate from serving. If a court finds the denial of appointment to be wrongful and grants retrospective seniority, the corresponding monetary benefits must also be provided to ensure complete implementation of judicial directions and to prevent discriminatory treatment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Result: Writ appeal allowed; order of the single judge quashed; appellants are held entitled to arrears of pay and all consequential monetary benefits from the month of September 2010.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Selected daily wage employees denied appointment due to faulty merit list — later appointed — claim for back wages. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )

2. Appellants: ready and willing, employer's fault kept them out — Respondents: mechanical application of 'no work no pay'. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )

3. Writ appeal allowed — single judge order quashed — appellants entitled to arrears from date of initial appointment cancellation. (Para 19 , 20 )

4. Can the 'no work no pay' principle be applied mechanically to deny back wages when an employee was prevented from working due to the employer's illegal action?

No, the principle cannot be applied mechanically; if the employee was ready and willing but prevented by the employer's fault, back wages are payable. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 )

5. Is denial of monetary benefits after granting retrospective seniority inconsistent with judicial directions?

Yes, granting retrospective seniority while denying arrears amounts to incomplete and inconsistent implementation of binding judicial directions. (Para 15 , 16 )

6. Does parity with similarly situated employees entitle the appellants to the same relief under Articles 14 and 16?

Yes, where an identical matter has been decided in favour of others and attained finality, denial of similar relief would be discriminatory. (Para 18 )

ORDER :

Pradeep Mittal, J.

The appellant has filed the present writ appeal challenging the order dated 30.11.2023 passed by Writ Court in Writ Petition No.7870/2018 whereby the said writ petition has been dismissed holding that since the petitioners were not appointed in the year 2008 and were subsequently given appointment only by order dated 13.01.2017 therefore, they are not entitled for backwages from the date when other candidates were selected and were appointed.

2. The writ appeal is barred by 4 days, thus I.A. No.3312/2024 has been filed seeking condonation of delay.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the I.A. No.3312/2024, same is allowed.

4. The delay in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned.

5. The appellants were initially appointed as daily rated employees in the year 1980 and had rendered more than 20 years of continuous service. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi , reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the State Government took a one-time decision to regularize/appoint eligible daily wage employees to the post of Forest Guard. Accordingly, the Chief Conservator of Forest issued a communication dated 16.09.2008 notifying 1500 vacant posts of Forest Guard, out of which 1006 posts were to be filled after completing necessary formalities.

6. The appellants applied pursuant to the said notification and successfully cleared the written examination, interview and physical test. As per communication dated 03.11.2008 issued by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Rewa Circle, out of 262 candidates who appeared, 217 candidates were declared successful. Though 89 candidates were appointed and 92 posts were still lying vacant, the appellants, despite being included in the selection list and directed to submit their testimonials for verification, were not issued appointment orders. The validity of the selection list was extended by order dated 28.05.2010.

7. Subsequently, the appellants were issued appointment orders dated 26.08.2010 and joined duties after being declared physically and medically fit. However, their appointments were cancelled within a few days by order dated 09.09.2010 without assigning any reasons.

8. Aggrieved, the appellants filed W.P. No.14609/2010, which was disposed of on 12.07.2011 in terms of the order dated 28.09.2010 passed in W.P. No.8938/2009(S), wherein this Court held that preparation of a District- wise merit list was faulty and directed the respondents to prepare a State- wise merit list and grant appointment to the petitioners in accordance with their merit. The said order was affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.344/2011 and further challenge by the State before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.17125-17126/2012 was dismissed on 05.05.2015. W.A. No.201/2012 was also dismissed on 19.08.2015, thereby rendering the issue final.

9. In compliance with the aforesaid judicial directions, the State Government prepared a State-wise merit list and the appellants were appointed as Forest Guards on probation by order dated 13.01.2017. However, juniors and less meritorious candidates had already been appointed in the year 2008, the appellants were not granted seniority and arrears of pay from that date.

10. The appellants filed W.P. No.15379/2017, which was disposed of on 25.10.2017 directing the respondents to decide their representation. By order dated 26.12.2017, the State Government granted seniority to the appellants from the date on which less meritorious candidates were appointed in 2008 but denied arrears of salary for the intervening period.

11. Challenging denial of arrears, the appellants filed W.P. No.7870/2018. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 30.11.2023, dismissed the writ petition holding that since petitioners were not appointed in the year 2008 and were subsequently given appointment only by order dated 13.01.2017, therefore, they are not entitled for backwages from the date when other candidates were selected and were appointed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 541

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
VIVEK RUSIA, PRADEEP MITTAL, JJ.
Rajesh Prasad Pandey And Others - Appellants
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 583 of 2024
Decided On : 25-02-2026

The principle of "no work no pay" cannot be mechanically applied when an employee's failure to work is due to the employer's illegal actions. If retrospective seniority is granted because of a wrongful denial of appointment, the employee is entitled to arrears of salary.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can the 'no work no pay' principle be applied mechanically to deny back wages when an employee was prevented from working due to the employer's illegal action?

5. Is denial of monetary benefits after granting retrospective seniority inconsistent with judicial directions?

6. Does parity with similarly situated employees entitle the appellants to the same relief under Articles 14 and 16?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(MP) 541

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPURVIVEK RUSIA, PRADEEP MITTAL, JJ.Rajesh Prasad Pandey And Others - AppellantsVersus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – RespondentsWrit Appeal No. 583 of 2024 Decided On : 25-02-2026

The principle of "no work no pay" cannot be mechanically applied when an employee's failure to work is due to the employer's illegal actions. If retrospective seniority is granted because of a wrongful denial of appointment, the employee is entitled to arrears of salary.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can the 'no work no pay' principle be applied mechanically to deny back wages when an employee was prevented from working due to the employer's illegal action?

5. Is denial of monetary benefits after granting retrospective seniority inconsistent with judicial directions?

6. Does parity with similarly situated employees entitle the appellants to the same relief under Articles 14 and 16?

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
VIVEK RUSIA, PRADEEP MITTAL, JJ.
Rajesh Prasad Pandey And Others - Appellants
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 583 of 2024
Decided On : 25-02-2026