IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT

th

ON THE 7 OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT PETITION No. 8992 of 2016

VITTHAL DAS SHARMA

Versus

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Alok Katare - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Dilip Awasthi – Government Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER

This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed

seeking the following relief (s):-

“(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be

allowed;

(ii) That, the order Annexure P/1 dated 5.12.2016 so far as it relates to deny the backwages to the petitioner and treating the period from 4.6.2013 to 5.12.2016 on the principle of “no work no pay” may kindly be directed to be quashed and the arrears of the backwages may kindly be granted to the petitioner along with interest at the rate

of 12% per annum.

(iii) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner.

Cost be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable on 2.6.1979 and as the petitioner's work was outstanding he was further promoted on the post of Head Constable on 5.12.1992 and thereafter on the post of A.S.I. on 5.7.2010. The case of petitioner was further considered for promotion on the post of Sub-Inspector in the DPC held in the year 2013 and various other Asstt. Sub-Inspectors who were juniors to the petitioner were also considered in the said DPC and were promoted on the post of Sub-Inspector on 4.7.2013. However, the case of petitioner was kept in a sealed cover due to pendency of the criminal case as one criminal case was registered against the petitioner under Section 338 and 304-A of IPC registered at Crime No.19/2010 at Gangapur City, District Ajmer, Rajasthan. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that thereafter petitioner was acquitted from the said criminal case on 8.3.2016 by the Court of A.C.J.M. Bharatpur (Rajasthan). After acquittal of petitioner in the criminal case, he represented the respondent/authorities for his promotion on the post of Sub-Inspector. Thereafter, the sealed cover envelope was opened and by order dated 7.11.2016 petitioner was granted promotion as per the recommendation of the DPC held in the year 2013 and the name of petitioner was also placed over and above his juniors in the gradation list. Thereafter, respondents issued order dated 05.12.2016 by which the petitioner has been granted promotion on the post of Sub-Inspector and he was granted the benefit of NBR from 04.06.2013. However, petitioner has been denied the backwages from the date of DPC/ date of promotion till the date of actual promotion i.e. 04.06.2013 to 5.12.2016. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that the action of the respondents in denying the backwages and treating the period for promotion till actual payment on the principle of "no work no pay" is violative of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India etc. etc. Vs. K.V. Jankiraman etc. etc. reported in AIR 1991 SC 2010 and also submitted that the backwages could not have been denied to the petitioner, once the petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal case on the basis of which the petitioner's promotion was withheld.

3. Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel for the State that as petitioner has not worked on the post of Sub-Inspector till the order dated 5.12.2016, therefore, he was not granted the benefit of the post of Sub-Inspector on the principle of "no work no pay”. Learned counsel for respondent/State further submitted that petitioner has not worked on the promoted post before his acquittal from criminal case, hence his all admissible dues are applicable to him from the date of joining.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. From perusal of the record, it is seen that