Back-wage claims require merits-based assessment; absence of an earlier direction alone cannot defeat them.

The applicant, a Railway Helper, joined service on 21 December 2022. His services were terminated on 16 January 2024 because a criminal case was pending against him.

Following orders of the Tribunal and the High Court, he was permitted to rejoin duty on 23 September 2024. He sought salary arrears for 16 January to 2 October 2024.

The respondents rejected his claim on the ground that the earlier judicial orders had not expressly directed payment of back wages.

1. Whether the respondents could reject the applicant’s independent claim for salary arrears solely because the earlier judicial orders did not expressly grant back wages

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to arrears and consequential benefits for the period between termination and return to duty, and, if so, whether interest was payable

Reinstatement does not automatically entitle an employee to back wages; entitlement must be decided on the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of the termination and the employee’s circumstances (U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mitthu Singh and General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh).

The Tribunal also relied on Constable Uma Shankaran v. Union of India, which recognises that an employee may have a legitimate claim to restoration of the benefits lost where the employer’s unlawful action prevented the employee from working, while treating back wages as not automatic.

No statute or service rule was identified as the basis of the decision.

The Tribunal found that the impugned rejection rested solely on the absence of an express back-wages direction in the earlier proceedings and disclosed no independent assessment of the applicant’s entitlement.

That omission was inadequate: the respondents were required to consider the claim on its merits in light of the termination and subsequent reinstatement.

Applying the cited precedents, the Tribunal held that the absence of an earlier direction did not itself defeat the claim, while the amount payable remained limited to admissible arrears and consequential benefits.

It directed the respondents to pay the admissible salary arrears for 16 January to 2 October 2024, together with consequential benefits, within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

No interest or costs were awarded.