A final direction to reinstate with consequential benefits bars denial of back wages and increments.

The petitioners were appointed following Advertisement No. 1/2015 to various support-staff posts in the Jharkhand Armed Police and related forces.

Their services were terminated on 23 June 2016 due to alleged irregularities in the selection process.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court set aside the termination and directed their reinstatement “with all consequential benefits”; the State did not challenge that order.

On 22 January 2021, the State revoked the termination and granted continuity of service, but treated the intervening period as “No Work, No Pay.”

The petitioners challenged that condition, seeking back wages, increments and other consequential benefits for the period from 23 June 2016 to 22 January 2021.

1. Whether the State could impose a “No Work, No Pay” condition when implementing the final earlier order directing reinstatement with consequential benefits.

2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to back wages, increments and other monetary benefits for the intervening period.

The Court relied on Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, which requires the competent authority, upon reinstatement, to make a specific order concerning pay and allowances for the absence period and whether that period counts as duty; full pay and treatment as duty follow where the employee is fully exonerated.

It applied the principle that a final judicial direction to grant “consequential benefits” must be implemented and cannot be diluted by the employer.

Relying on *Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya*, the Court noted that reinstatement with continuity and back wages is ordinarily appropriate in wrongful-termination cases, subject to relevant circumstances, and that an employer seeking to deny back wages must plead and prove gainful employment.

It also relied on *Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah*, *T. Sudhakar v. Union of India* and *Rajendra Prasad Sharma v. State of Jharkhand* for the binding effect of final orders and the inclusion of increments and other monetary benefits within consequential benefits.

The earlier order expressly required reinstatement with consequential benefits and had attained finality; the State therefore could not use the 2021 notification to qualify that direction by imposing “No Work, No Pay.”

The petitioners’ absence resulted from the State’s termination decision, and they asserted that they remained unemployed; the State did not rebut that assertion by showing gainful employment.

The Court held that Rule 97 did not justify withholding benefits in the absence of a finding supporting that result or a specific order consistent with the Rule.

It further found that increments were consequential benefits because their denial would adversely affect future pay fixation and service-related benefits.

It partially quashed and modified Notification No. 351 dated 22 January 2021.

It directed the respondents to grant the petitioners consequential benefits, including back wages and increments, and to issue the necessary orders within eight weeks of receiving or being presented with a copy of the judgment.

The writ petition was allowed on those terms.