SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back Icon Back Next Next Icon
AI icon Copy icon AI Message Bookmarks icon Share icon Up Arrow icon Down Arrow icon Zoom in icon Zoom Out icon Print Search icon Print icon Download icon Expand icon Close icon

Case Law

Wrongful Termination: Employee Entitled to Full Back Wages as Employer is the 'Wrongdoer', 'No Work No Pay' Principle Inapplicable: Patna High Court

2025-11-21

Subject: Service Law - Termination/Dismissal

AI Assistant icon
Wrongful Termination: Employee Entitled to Full Back Wages as Employer is the 'Wrongdoer', 'No Work No Pay' Principle Inapplicable: Patna High Court

Supreme Today News Desk

Patna High Court Awards Full Back Wages to Reinstated BMP Officer, Rejects 'No Work, No Pay'

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.

Case Background

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.

Arguments of the Parties

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.

Court's Reasoning and Precedent

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.

Final Decision

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

Breaking News

View All
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top