Facts
The three applicants were appointed as Postal Assistants in the Bardoli Division between 2018 and 2019
Source reference: p. 14Their services were subsequently terminated between 2022 and 2023 following allegations of malpractices in the recruitment process
Source reference: p. 14The respondents issued reinstatement orders on April 17, 2025, but included conditions stating that the principle of "No Work No Pay" would be strictly adhered to and that consequential benefits/seniority from original appointment dates would not be granted
Source reference: p. 3The applicants challenged these specific exclusionary clauses, seeking full back wages, seniority, and pay increments from their initial appointment dates
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the applicants are entitled to continuity of service, seniority, and back wages upon reinstatement under the relevant service rules
Source reference: p. 6, para. 6.42. Whether the principle of "No Work No Pay" can be applied to negate statutory protections under Fundamental Rule 54-A when a termination is set aside
Source reference: p. 9, para 6.10Law Applied
Fundamental Rule 54-A, which mandates the regularization of service and payment of allowances when a dismissal or removal is set aside by a Court of Law
Source reference: p. 6, para 6.6Supreme Court precedent in Monu Tomar v. Union of India, which held that candidates not found guilty of malpractice should be reinstated with consequential benefits and 50% back wages
Source reference: p. 4, para 6.1The "consider jurisprudence" approach from Mahendra Prasad Agarwal vs. Arvind Kumar Singh, emphasizing that legal remedies must be effective and efficient rather than merely academic
Source reference: p. 10, para 6.12Reasoning
The Tribunal observed that the present case is identical to the batch matter OA No. 1758/2025, decided on March 12, 2026
Source reference: p. 3, para 6FR 54-A does not recognize the concept of "No Work No Pay" in instances where a termination is found to be procedurally flawed or lacks a finding of merit-based exoneration
Source reference: p. 9-10, para 6.10Because the termination was effectively set aside and reinstatement ordered, the period of absence must be regularized to protect the applicants’ statutory rights regarding seniority and pay fixation
Source reference: p. 9, para 6.9The Tribunal followed the "middle path" established in State of Rajasthan v. Mangat Lal Sidana and Monu Tomar, balancing the lack of actual work with the illegality of the termination by granting notional benefits and restricted arrears
Source reference: p. 8, para 6.8; p. 12, para 7.1Holding
The Tribunal allowed the Original Application and quashed the impugned orders to the extent they denied consequential benefits
Applicants are entitled to continuity of service and notional pay fixation from their initial appointment dates
Source reference: p. 12, para 7.1(i)Respondents must re-fix pay and seniority accordingly
Source reference: p. 12, para 7.1(ii)Actual arrears of pay are restricted to three years preceding the filing of the OA
Source reference: p. 12, para 7.1(iii)The respondents were directed to comply within three months or pay interest at the GPF rate
Source reference: p. 13, para 7.1(iv)Original Court PDF
SUMAN PRAKASHvsDEPARTMENT OF POSTS
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in