Reinstatement of Employees Mandated with Service Continuity but Without Back Wages Following Supreme Court Precedent

The appellants challenged an order passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 9567 of 2020

The Single Judge had disposed of the writ petition based on a joint statement by counsel that the facts were identical to Priyanka Kumari & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (L.P.A. No. 671 of 2018), making the outcome subject to a pending appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Diary No. 30148 of 2022)

Following the resolution of that underlying dispute by the Apex Court, the appellants moved this Letters Patent Appeal seeking parity in relief

1. Whether the appellants are entitled to reinstatement and continuity of service in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the related matter of Priyanka Kumari & Ors. v. State of Bihar

2. Whether the appellants are entitled to back wages for the period they did not perform their duties

The court applied the precedent established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Kumari & Ors. v. State of Bihar (Civil Appeal No. 797 of 2026), which sets the principle that where a termination is found unsustainable in law, the employees are entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service

the principle of "no work, no pay" may be applied to deny back wages if the State is not solely at fault for the intervening period of non-performance

The Court noted that the core issues of the present appeal were no longer res integra as they stood concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 797 of 2026

Since both the appellants and the respondents (represented by the Additional Advocate General) admitted that the facts and legal questions were identical to the matter decided by the Apex Court, the High Court determined that no further adjudication was required

The Court followed the Supreme Court's reasoning: while the appellants deserved to be restored to their positions with seniority (continuity), they could not claim back wages for the period in which they had not actually rendered service, particularly as the delay/litigation could not be attributed exclusively to the State's fault

the prayer for back wages was denied on the basis that the appellants did not perform their duties during the intervening period. The Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of accordingly