Reinstatement after dismissal entails continuity of service for pensionary purposes unless expressly excluded; denial of back wages on 'no work, no pay' grounds does not automatically imply a break in qualifying service for pension computation.

O R D E R

07.01.2026

1. This petition, inter alia, seeks a direction to the Respondent to release the Petitioner’s retiral benefits, including pension, leave encashment, gratuity and compassionate allowance. However, during hearing the controversy has narrowed. The Petitioner does not seek any arrears of salary for the period he remained out of service pursuant to the dismissal order dated 23rd July, 2016. The challenge is confined to the manner in which the Respondent has computed “qualifying service” for pensionary benefits, by excluding the intervening period between dismissal and reinstatement and thereby treating the Petitioner as having only 28 years of qualifying service, as against the Petitioner’s case that the qualifying service ought to be reckoned as 31 years and 9 months.

2. The background relevant to contextualise the Petitioner’s grievance is as follows: the Petitioner joined LIC as an Assistant on 25th September, 1989. In the year 2015, a chargesheet was issued to the Petitioner on the allegation of non-compliance with a transfer order from Branch 11M, Shahdara to Branch 11L, Narela. A departmental enquiry followed, culminating in an order dated 23rd July, 2016, imposing the penalty of dismissal, with allegations of habitual unauthorised absence, insubordination and non-performance.

3. The Petitioner challenged the award before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court.¹“CGIT” By award dated 11th February, 2019, the CGIT set aside the penalty of dismissal and directed reinstatement. At the same time, it denied the Petitioner “pecuniary or monetary benefits” for the interregnum from the date of removal till the date of publication of the award.

4. Both parties challenged the said award by filing writ petitions, being W.P.(C) No. 6310/2019 at the instance of the Petitioner and W.P.(C) No. 6241/2019 at the instance of LIC. These petitions were decided by a common judgment dated 29th June, 2020, whereby the award of the CGIT was upheld. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as under:

“26. All the allegations raised against the Workman were duly communicated to him and there is no violation of the principles of natural justice in this case. The Workman has selectively chosen to participate in the proceedings, but has on most occasions refused to participate, while fully being aware of the proceedings. A workman cannot claim back wages as a matter of right as held in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (supra). While the long tenure of the workman has resulted in his reinstatement, owing to his past conduct, the labour court has rightly held that he would not be entitled to back wages. Under such circumstances, the Labour Court’s order which directs reinstatement on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit, as has been done in the present case, is fully justified and does not warrant any interference.

27. Both petitions are dismissed with no orders as to costs. All monetary benefits to the Workman in terms of the Labour Court’s order be released within a period of six weeks.”

5. The Petitioner’s further challenge before the Supreme Court by way of SLP(C) No. 11401/2020, was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, the Petitioner also preferred Letters Patent Appeals against the judgment dated 29th June, 2020 before this Court, one of which was dismissed on merits and the other dismissed as withdrawn.

6. The issue of back wages has attained finality and is no longer in dispute. The limited grievance raised herein pertains to the alleged miscalculation of “qualifying service” for pensionary pu