Case Law
Subject : Service Law - Termination/Dismissal
Patna, Bihar – The Patna High Court, in a significant ruling on service law, has ordered the State of Bihar to pay full back wages to a Bihar Military Police (BMP) officer who was wrongfully discharged from service for nearly 16 years. Justice Partha Sarthy held that an employee is entitled to complete arrears of salary when their termination is quashed by a court, rejecting the government's reliance on the 'no work, no pay' principle.
The court emphasized that the employer, being the "wrongdoer" responsible for the illegal termination, cannot be relieved of the liability to pay the employee's dues.
The petitioner, Anil Kumar Singh, a BMP officer, was discharged from service on April 26, 1995, following a departmental proceeding. The disciplinary action was initiated on grounds of unauthorised absence. Although an Enquiry Officer found him guilty of absence, the Commandant of BMP disagreed with parts of the report and ultimately ordered his discharge.
Singh's subsequent appeals and memorials to the Deputy Inspector General (D.I.G) and the Director General of Police (DGP) were rejected. He challenged these orders in the High Court in a writ petition (CWJC no.5177 of 1997). On August 3, 2010, the court found the termination order legally unsustainable and quashed it, along with the appellate and memorial rejection orders.
Despite being reinstated on April 2, 2011, Singh was denied his salary and allowances for the period he was forcibly kept out of service, from 1995 to 2011. The authorities granted him only "notional benefits" for this period, leading him to file the present writ petition.
The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Binod Bihari Sinha, argued that since the High Court had set aside the termination order as illegal, Singh was entitled to full arrears of salary for the period he was wrongfully prevented from working. He relied on the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (2013) .
The State, represented by Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, countered by asserting that the principle of 'no work, no pay' should apply. They contended that the earlier writ petition was allowed on a "technical ground," and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to back wages for the period he did not render any service.
Justice Partha Sarthy observed that the petitioner's termination was unequivocally quashed by the court in 2010. The core issue was whether the denial of back wages was justified.
The Court found the petitioner's case to be "fully covered" by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the Deepali Gundu Surwase case. The judgment highlighted a key excerpt from the Supreme Court's ruling:
> "The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice...the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages...the courts must always keep in view that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give a premium to the employer of his wrongdoings..."
The High Court noted that the petitioner's initial termination order was set aside due to violations of established legal principles, as settled by the Apex Court in cases like Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Bihari Mishra . Therefore, the state's action was wrongful, and it could not benefit from its own error.
Allowing the writ petition, the Patna High Court ruled that Anil Kumar Singh is entitled to "full back-wages" for the entire period from his date of discharge (April 26, 1995) to his reinstatement (April 2, 2011). The court has directed the respondents to calculate and pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
#ServiceLaw #BackWages #WrongfulTermination
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
Consolidated SCNs under Sections 73/74 CGST Act Permissible Across Multiple FYs: Karnataka HC
01 May 2026
Allahabad HC Stays NCLT Principal Bench Order Mandating Joint Scrutiny of Allahabad Bench Filings
01 May 2026
Bombay HC Grants Interim Protection from Arrest Despite Pending Anticipatory Bail in Lower Court Due to Accused's Marriage: Sections 351(2), 64(2)(m), 74 IPC
01 May 2026
Heavy Machinery Barred in Mining Leases Except Dredging: Uttarakhand HC Directs DM to Enforce Rule 29(17) of Minor Mineral Rules
01 May 2026
No Deemed Confirmation After Probation Without Written Order Under Model Standing Orders Clause 4A: Bombay High Court
01 May 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.