IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT

nd

ON THE 22 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 3932 of 2016 VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sunil Kumar Soni - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri K.K. Prajapati - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

ORDER This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"7.1 यह (cid:3)क, (cid:5)ितयािचकाकता(cid:10) (cid:11)मांक-3 को यह िनद(cid:17)िशत (cid:3)कया जावे (cid:3)क यािचकाकता(cid:10) को उसका वैध वेतन (cid:3)दनांक 23/09/2011 से 29/12/2011 तक का भुगतान अ(cid:30)वल(cid:32)ब (cid:3)कया जावे।

7.2 यह (cid:3)क, यािचकाकता(cid:10) (cid:35)ारा (cid:5)(cid:37)तुत (cid:5)ितवेदन का िनराकरण (cid:3)कया

जाये ।

7.3 यह (cid:3)क, अ(cid:39)य कोई सहायता या अनुतोष जो माननीय (cid:39)यायालय (cid:39)याय(cid:3)हत म(cid:43) उिचत व अिनवाय(cid:10) समझे, वह यािचकाकता(cid:10) को

(cid:5)ितयािचकाकताग(cid:10) ण से (cid:3)दलाई जावे।"

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, the petitioner was appointed for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak on 27.10.2006. Thereafter, services of the petitioner was terminated by order dated 24.12.2010. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, petitioner has preferred a writ petition no.6594/2011 which was disposed of on 01.10.2011 with direction to Appellate Authority to decide the appeal and thereafter, CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Bhitarwar, District Gwalior in compliance of the aforesaid direction issued by High Court, decided the representation/appeal of petitioner vide order dated 28.12.2011 and set aside the earlier termination order dated 24.12.2010. It is further submitted that the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 24.12.2010 and that order was set aside by the respondents themselves and therefore, petitioner is entitled to the salary from the period of 23.09.2011 to 28.12.2011. It was the fault of the respondents, and due to their mistake, the petitioner was prevented from performing his duties. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to salary for the aforesaid period.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that admittedly, the petitioner did not worked from the period of 23.09.2011 to 28.12.2011 and on the principle of "No Work No Pay", petitioner is not entitled for salary of the aforesaid period. It is further submitted that this petition was filed on 03.05.2016 after the delay of more than 5 years. He also relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 14.02.2025 passed in W.A.No.1702/2022 (Suresh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and Ors.). On the aforesaid grounds, the petitioner is not entitled for salary from the period of 23.09.2011 to 28.12.2011.

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

5. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to salary from the period of 23.09.2011 to 04.01.2012. Admittedly, the petitioner has not worked in the aforesaid period.

6. This is a case where petitioner got the benefit reinstatement but is seeking back wages. Case of back wages differs from case to case. In the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and others, (2013) 10 SCC 324 and U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Uday Narayan Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479 has given guidance regarding reinstatement. The Apex Court in the case of Deepali Kundu Surwase (supra) clarified that reinstatement with back wages would not be automatic, it differs from case to case and culled out some propositions which are as under:

“38. The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:

38.1. In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.

38.2. The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicating authority or the Court