Continuity of service alone does not confer back wages for a period of non-work.

The appellant, a CISF Constable, was terminated in November 2012. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh later directed the respondents to reconsider the termination in light of Avtar Singh v. Union of India; the authorities reinstated him in 2019 with continuity of service and notional increments, but without back wages for the intervening period.

After obtaining pay refixation and arrears from the date of reinstatement, the appellant sought salary for January 2013 to May 2019. The Single Judge dismissed his writ petition, and he appealed.

Whether the appellant was entitled to back wages for the period during which the termination order remained in force, notwithstanding his subsequent reinstatement with continuity of service.

Whether the Division Bench should interfere with the Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition challenging the denial of back wages.

The Court applied the principle that reinstatement does not, by itself, confer an entitlement to back wages for a period when the employee did not work. Relying on Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore (1996) 11 SCC 603, it stated that back wages may depend on whether the employee was unlawfully prevented from working, and that the employee’s conduct and the circumstances of the case are relevant.

It also relied on Union of India v. Jaipal Singh (2004) 1 SCC 121, which held that back wages may be denied where an employee was kept out of service because of criminal proceedings not attributable to the department; different considerations may arise where the prosecution was initiated at the department’s behest.

The appellant’s reinstatement followed reconsideration of the termination and was expressly granted without back wages, while preserving continuity of service and notional increments.

The Court noted that the appellant had not worked during the relevant period and that the termination arose in connection with a pending criminal case. Applying Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore and Jaipal Singh, it concluded that the circumstances did not justify payment for the period of non-service.

The writ appeal was dismissed without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.