Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4061
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
VIVEK JAIN, J
ANIL KUMAR SINGH ALIAS PAPPU – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 23488 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Nitya Nand Mishra
For the Respondents: Ms. Supriya Singh
Court upheld the principle of restitution, allowing back wages for the period of unlawful termination delays caused by an interim judicial stay.
Headnote:(A) The principles of 'No Work No Pay' were applied regarding back wages following reinstatement after termination. The doctrine of 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' was discussed, focusing on protection against disadvantage due to court decisions. (Paras 5, 7)
(B) Restitution principles were invoked, establishing the petitioner’s right to back wages during a stay period caused by a third-party appeal. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was terminated by the Collector and reinstated by the Commissioner; however, a third-party stay delayed actual reinstatement until 2023.
Findings of Court:
The court recognized entitlement to back wages from the date of the Commissioner's order due to delays caused by court proceedings.
Issues: The main issues were the justification for denying back wages during the period of stay and the application of the doctrine protecting parties from unintended court actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner was entitled to back wages due to the undue delay caused by the stay order, applying restitution principles to eliminate disadvantage.
Result: The petition is allowed, and the petitioner is entitled to back wages.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN th ON THE 9 OF JULY, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 23488 of 2024 ANIL KUMAR SINGH ALIAS PAPPU Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:
Shri Nitya Nand Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Supriya Singh Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State.
ORDER The present petition has been filed challenging that part of the order Annexure P/8 dated 12.09.2023 whereby the Chief Executive Officer though had reinstated the petitioner in service and allowed joining of the petitioner but has rejected the request for back wages for the period of termination.
The brief facts of the case for the purpose of disposal of present petition are that the petitioner was initially terminated from service while working as Gram Panchayat Secretary vide order dated 24.12.2013 passed by the Collector. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the Commissioner which was ultimately allowed vide order dated
22.03.2014 and it was directed that the petitioner be reinstated in service.
The aforesaid order was not challenged by the State and the petitioner attained right to be reinstated in service on 22.03.2014 which is the date of order of Commissioner. A third person namely Samarjeet Singh filed a writ Signature Not Verified petition before this Court registered as W.P. No. 5803/2014 challenging the order of Commissioner in which this Court in 2014 itself stayed the order of reinstatement passed by the Commissioner. The stay went on for nine years and ultimately on 29.03.2023, W.P. No.5803/2014 was dismissed by this Court holding that the order of Commissioner is well reasoned and justified order.
After the order of Commissioner was affirmed by this Court in writ petition, the Chief Executive Officer issued the consequential order dated 12.09.2023 (Annexure P/8) allowing joining of the petitioner but holding that the petitioner would not be entitled to any back wages on the principle of 'No Work No Pay'.
It is true that the Commissioner while ordering reinstatement of the petitioner did not pass any order for back wages and, therefore, the back wages to the petitioner can be validly denied between the period which starts with order of Collector and ends with the order of the Commissioner whereby reinstatement had been ordered. Thereafter, the reinstatement order was stayed by judicial order passed in W.P. No.5803/2014 for which the petitioner cannot be said to be at fault. The said writ petition was ultimately dismissed and the order of Commissioner was confirmed.
In the aforesaid factual situation of this case, it is evident that atleast from the date of order of the Commissioner i.e. 22.03.2014, the petitioner was entitled to be reinstated back in service but on account of the stay order, the petitioner could not be reinstated back in service.
The petitioner cannot be put to disadvantage also on the basis of Signature Not Verified doctrine of "actus curiae neminem gravabit", that protects the parties from being injured by an unintended act of Court. The said doctrine was applied by a 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in cases where after grant of stay, ultimately the case is dismissed, and the other party suffers injury upon the stay prevailing against it. In Karnataka Rare Earth and another Vs. Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology and another reported in
2004(2) SCC 783, it was held as under:-
"10. In South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. [ (2003) 8 SCC 648 ] this Court dealt with the effect on the rights of the parties who have acted bona fide, protected by interim orders of the court and incurred rights and obligations while the interim orders stood vacated or reversed at the end. The Court referred to the doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit and held that the doctrine was not confined in its application only to such acts of the court which were erroneous; the doctrine is applicable to all such acts as to which it can be held t
