A convicted employee whose sentence is commuted and who is reinstated is not entitled to back wages for the period of non-service, as the conviction remains final and the 'no work no pay' principle applies.

Headnote:(A) Army Act, 1950 - Sections 163(2) and 179 - Commutation of sentence - Back wages - “No work no pay” principle - Petitioner convicted by General Court Martial, sentence of cashiering later commuted, reinstated - Denial of back wages upheld - Conviction attained finality - Commutation does not relate back or obliterate conviction - Employee not entitled to wages for period not worked due to own misconduct. (Paras 18-20)

(B) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Scope of judicial review - Limited to patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error - Not to substitute view. (Para 14)

(C) Service Law - Back wages - Distinction between acquittal/exoneration and conviction with modified sentence - Principle of “no work no pay” applied. (Paras 16, 19-20)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, an officer in the Indian Army, was tried by a General Court Martial in 2001 and found guilty of charges, resulting in sentence of cashiering and one year rigorous imprisonment. The conviction attained finality. On earlier appeal, the Armed Forces Tribunal interfered only with quantum of sentence. The Central Government subsequently commuted the sentence, reinstated the Petitioner, but denied back wages for the period from 04.12.2001 to 04.03.2013. The AFT dismissed the Petitioner's claim for back wages, applying the “no work no pay” principle. The Petitioner challenged this before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the commutation of sentence does not render the original punishment void ab initio; the conviction remains. The principle of “no work no pay” applies as the Petitioner did not render service during the period due to his own conviction, which was not set aside. The AFT's order did not suffer from any infirmity.

Issues: Whether a petitioner whose conviction has attained finality but whose sentence was subsequently commuted, resulting in reinstatement, is entitled to back wages for the period during which he did not render service.

Ratio Decidendi: An employee is not entitled to salary for a period during which he has not actually discharged duties, even if certain benefits are subsequently extended. Commutation of sentence does not relate back to the date of imposition and does not obliterate the fact that the employee was kept out of service due to his own misconduct. The “no work no pay” principle applies in such circumstances.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1. The present Petition, preferred by the Petitioner, assails the correctness of the order dated 09.08.2024 [hereinafter referred to as the „Impugned Order‟] passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „AFT‟] in O.A. No. 404/2016, whereby the Original Application filed by the Petitioner seeking grant of back wages for the period from 04.12.2001 to 04.03.2013 has been dismissed. The Petitioner further assails the order dated 13.09.2012, as modified by corrigendum dated 15.02.2013, as well as the order dated 16.11.2015 passed by the Central Government, to the limited extent they deny him back wages for the aforesaid period.

2. The issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition is as to whether the Petitioner, whose conviction in the General Court Martial has attained finality but whose sentence was subsequently commuted resulting in his reinstatement in service, is entitled to back wages for the period during which he admittedly did not render service.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Petition, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

4. The Petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army on 15.12.1984 in the Corps of Engineers. While serving as Garrison Engineer (Project) at Agra, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, which culminated in his trial by a General Court Martial under the provisions of the Army Act, 1950 [hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟].

5. The proceedings before the General Court Martial commenced on 28.02.2001 and concluded on 12.04.2001, whereby the Petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled against him and was sentenced to be cashiered from service and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Upon confirmation of the findings and sentence by the competent authority, the unexpired portion of the sentence of rigorous imprisonment was remitted; however, the punishment of cashiering was allowed to take effect with effect from 04.12.2001. A statutory petition preferred by the Petitioner under Section 164(2) of the Act came to be rejected by the Central Government on 08.08.2003.

6. Aggrieved by the findings and sentence recorded by the General Court Martial, as well as the rejection of his statutory petition, the Petitioner initially approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) No. 772/2004. Upon constitution of the AFT, the said writ petition stood transferred and was registered as T.A. No. 503/2009 before the AFT. The AFT, after considering the matter, vide judgment dated 02.05.2011, partly allowed the Transferred Application, however, only to the limited extent of the quantum of sentence, and remitted the matter to the Respondents for reconsideration of the sentence in light of the mitigating circumstances noticed therein. It is material to note that the findings of guilt recorded by the General Court Martial were not interfered with and, thus, attained finality. The Petitioner did not assail the correctness of the AFT judgment dated 02.05.2011.

7. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment dated 02.05.2011 passed by the AFT, the matter was reconsidered by the Central Government, which, vide order dated 13.09.2012, in exercise of powers under Section 163(2) read with Section 179 of the Act, commuted the sentence awarded to the Petitioner. The punishment of cashiering was substituted with the directions that the Petitioner shall take rank and precedence as if his appointment as substantive Major bore date 25.12.1996 and that he be severely reprimanded. The said order, however, specifically provided that the Petitioner shall not be entitled to back wages on the principle of “no work no pay”. Thereafter, by a subsequent corrigendum dated 15.02.2013, the Petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service, albeit without grant of back wages for the intervening period.

8. Pursuant to the aforesaid corrigendum dated 15.02.2013, the Petitioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6492

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHILT COL BEANT SINGH (RETD) – AppellantVersusUNION OF INDIA & ORS. – RespondentW.P.(C)-14643/2024

A convicted employee whose sentence is commuted and who is reinstated is not entitled to back wages for the period of non-service, as the conviction remains final and the 'no work no pay' principle applies.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
LT COL BEANT SINGH (RETD) – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – Respondent
W.P.(C)-14643/2024