Quashing a removal order does not automatically entitle an employee to full back wages.

The applicant was suspended in August 2005 and removed from service in July 2006. On appeal, the removal was modified to a five-year reversion, and the intervening period was treated as dies non. The Tribunal later set aside the disciplinary and appellate orders in O.A. No. 128/2008.

The respondents subsequently initiated fresh disciplinary proceedings on the same charges; those proceedings ultimately resulted in a penalty of reversion, modified on appeal only as to its duration. The applicant sought full back wages for his period out of service and the difference between Assistant Loco Pilot and Loco Pilot (Goods) pay for a later period. The respondents rejected the claim, and the applicant challenged that rejection in this O.A.

Whether setting aside an earlier removal or punishment order automatically entitled the applicant to full back wages for the period he remained out of service.

Whether the applicant was entitled to the difference in pay for the period he worked as Assistant Loco Pilot rather than Loco Pilot (Goods).

The Tribunal applied the service-law principle that setting aside a dismissal or removal does not, by itself, automatically entitle an employee to full back wages; that entitlement must be assessed in light of the circumstances of the case.

It distinguished setting aside a punishment for procedural or legal infirmity from exoneration on the merits, and observed that continuity of service or notional benefits may be preserved without awarding actual back wages.

No statute or specific judicial precedent was identified in the order.

The Tribunal found that its earlier order setting aside the original punishment had not exonerated the applicant on the merits. Subsequent disciplinary proceedings resulted in a substantive penalty of reversion, so the applicant was not fully vindicated of the charges.

In those circumstances, the earlier orders’ annulment did not establish an automatic entitlement to full back wages. The claim for the higher post’s pay also failed because the applicant had not performed the duties of a Loco Pilot (Goods), and the relevant punishment order remained in force during the period claimed.

The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. for lack of merit, and made no order as to costs.