An acquitted employee is entitled to consequential benefits from acquittal until reinstatement.

The petitioner, a Class IV government employee, was convicted and consequently removed from service in connection with offences under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

He was acquitted of the criminal charges on 10 May 2013 and was reinstated in service on 9 September 2016.

However, by the order dated 9 September 2016, the respondents denied him consequential benefits for the period between his acquittal and reinstatement.

The petitioner challenged that denial before the High Court, contending that he was entitled to such benefits from the date of acquittal until reinstatement.

Whether an employee acquitted of the criminal charges is entitled to consequential benefits or back wages for the period between the date of acquittal and the date of reinstatement?

Whether the denial of such benefits was sustainable in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions governing reinstatement after acquittal?

The Court applied the principle that reinstatement following acquittal does not automatically entitle an employee to back wages for the entire period from dismissal to reinstatement.

In Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar, the Supreme Court held that where the employee’s absence resulted from his involvement in a criminal case, back wages are ordinarily not payable for the period preceding acquittal, particularly where there was no unsustainable disciplinary action.

The same principle was approved in Union of India v. Jaipal Singh.

Relying on Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal, the Court further applied the “no work, no pay” principle and recognised the competent authority’s power to determine whether the period of absence should be treated as duty or leave.

Under State Bank of India v. Mohammed Abdul Rahim, subsequent acquittal does not retrospectively erase the legal consequences of the earlier conviction, although reinstatement becomes due after acquittal.

Finally, Raj Narain v. Union of India was relied upon for the proposition that back wages may be granted from the date of acquittal until the date of reinstatement.

The Court distinguished between the period before acquittal and the period after acquittal.

The petitioner’s non-employment before 10 May 2013 resulted from his criminal involvement, conviction, and consequent absence from service; therefore, under the principles in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore, Jaipal Singh, and Mohammed Abdul Rahim, he was not automatically entitled to salary for that earlier period.

However, once he was acquitted, the basis for continuing his exclusion from service ceased.

Since reinstatement was ultimately granted only on 9 September 2016, the respondents were required to extend consequential benefits for the intervening period between acquittal and reinstatement.

Applying the principle stated in Raj Narain, the Court held that the petitioner’s entitlement commenced on the date of acquittal and continued until reinstatement.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed to that extent, and the denial of benefits for the said period was set aside.

No order as to costs was made.