Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 27152
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
Anand Ram Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 80 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Arvind Shrivastava, Indrajit Thakur
For the Respondents: Pranjal Shukla
A government servant acquitted of criminal charges and subsequently reinstated is not entitled to back wages for the period of conviction/incarceration but is entitled to consequential benefits from the date of acquittal until the date of reinstatement.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Reinstatement after Acquittal - Back wages for the period of conviction and incarceration are generally not granted as the employee's own conduct disabled them from rendering service. (Para 6)
(B) Service Law - Principle of 'No Work, No Pay' - An employee absent from duty due to their own involvement in misconduct or criminal proceedings is not entitled to pay and allowances unless the competent authority treats the period as being on duty. (Para 8)
(C) Service Law - Consequential Benefits - While back wages for the period of conviction are denied, a government servant is entitled to consequential benefits from the date of acquittal until the date of actual reinstatement. (Para 10, 11)
Issues: Whether a government servant reinstated after acquittal is entitled to consequential benefits for the period between the date of acquittal and the date of reinstatement.
(Single Bench)
Order on Board
25.08.2026
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.09.2016, by which he has been denied the consequential benefits from the date of acquittal till date of his reinstatement.
2. Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Indrajit Thakur, learned counsel would submit that the said denial is contrary to the order passed by this Court in Jatashankar v. State of Chhattisgarh12025 SCC OnLine Chh 7466.
3. Mr. Pranjal Shukla, learned State counsel, would support the impugned order and submit that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records minutely.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner was acquitted from the offence under Section 302 & 120-B of I.P.C. on 10.05.2013 and he has been reinstated on 09.09.2016, but he was denied for consequential benefits.
6. The issue involved herein is no longer res integra and it stands conclusively determined by their Lordships of the Supreme Court by their judgment first of all in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar 2(1996) 11 SCC 603 in which their Lordships have considered a case where an employee was dismissed from service on account of his conviction by a criminal court for his involvement in an offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC and subsequently, he was acquitted and as a consequence, reinstated. Their Lordships while considering the issue whether back-wages should be paid to the employee for the period between the date of dismissal and the date of reinstatement held as under: -
"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 basis of the conviction by operation of proviso to the statutory rules applicable to the situation. The question of back wages would be considered only if the respondents have taken action by way of disciplinary proceedings 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 its own backdrop. 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."
7. Similarly, in the matter of Union of India v. Jaipal Singh3(2004) 1 SCC 121, the principle of law laid down in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore (supra) has been followed with approval.
8. In the matter of Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal 4AIR 1994 SC 552, the Supreme Court has considered a provision in the service regulation which provided that an employee, who is absent from duty without any authority, shall not be entitled to any pay and allowance during the period of such absence (similar to F.R. 17) and held as under: -
“15. … It is only if such employee is acquitted of all blame and is treated by the competent authority as being on duty during the period of suspension that such employee is entitled to full pay and allowances for the said period. In other words, the Regulations vest the power exclusively in the Bank to treat the period of such suspension on duty or on leave or otherwise. The power thus vested cannot be validly challenged. During this period, the employee renders no work. He is absent for reasons of his own involvement in the misconduct and the Bank is in no way responsible for keeping him away from his duties. T
