No entitlement to back wages under "no work no pay" where conviction stands but sentence is commuted.

The Petitioner, commissioned in the Corps of Engineers in 1984, was tried by a General Court Martial (GCM) in 2001 for misconduct while serving as Garrison Engineer at Agra.

The GCM sentenced him to be cashiered and undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment; the cashiering took effect on 04.12.2001.

In 2011, the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) upheld the conviction but remitted the matter for reconsideration of the sentence.

Consequently, the Central Government commuted the sentence to a loss of seniority and a severe reprimand, ordering his reinstatement on 15.02.2013, but specifically denied back wages for the period he was out of service (04.12.2001 to 04.03.2013) on the principle of "no work no pay".

The Petitioner challenged this denial before the AFT, which dismissed his plea on 09.08.2024, leading to the present writ petition.

Whether a service member whose conviction in a General Court Martial attained finality, but whose sentence was subsequently commuted resulting in reinstatement, is entitled to back wages for the period they did not render service.

The court applied the principle of "no work no pay," establishing that salary is ordinarily payable only for actual discharge of duties.

Section 163(2) and Section 179 of the Army Act, 1950, regarding the power to commute sentences, noting that such powers modify punishment rather than declaring the original proceedings void ab initio.

Paluru Ramakrishnaiah v. Union of India and Baldev Singh v. Union of India, which affirm that employees are not entitled to back wages for periods of non-service resulting from convictions that are not set aside.

The Court reasoned that the Petitioner’s situation differs from cases of illegal termination or acquittal because his conviction for misconduct was never set aside and had attained finality.

The AFT’s 2011 intervention was strictly limited to the quantum of sentence, leaving the finding of guilt undisturbed.

The administrative commutation of the sentence by the Central Government was an act of leniency rather than an acknowledgment of a legal error that would invalidate the period of dismissal.

Applying the "no work no pay" doctrine, the court held that since the Petitioner was kept out of service due to his own proven misconduct and did not actually render service between 2001 and 2013, he holds no legal right to monetary benefits for that duration.

The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to back wages and no patent illegality or jurisdictional error was found in the Impugned Order.