REINSTATEMENT ON SYMPATHETIC GROUNDS DOES NOT ENTITLE AN EMPLOYEE TO BACK WAGES UNDER THE PRINCIPLE OF NO WORK-NO PAY.

The petitioner, a Constable (GD) in the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), was dismissed from service on 17.06.2019 following a summary court trial for overstaying sanctioned leave by 126 days.

The petitioner claimed he was attending to his mother, who had cancer.

An initial appeal was dismissed in 2019, but upon a challenge in W.P.(C) 3983/2021, the Gauhati High Court remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority to consider whether a penalty lesser than dismissal was warranted.

On 31.01.2024, the Appellate Authority set aside the dismissal and ordered reinstatement on the principle of "no work, no pay," granting the disciplinary authority liberty to take fresh administrative action.

The disciplinary authority subsequently regularized the overstay period as dies non.

The petitioner filed the present writ seeking back wages for the period he was out of service (2019–2024), arguing he was willing to work but was prevented by an illegal dismissal.

1. Whether a reinstated employee is entitled to back wages and consequential benefits when reinstatement is granted on sympathetic grounds rather than a finding of illegal termination

2. Whether the principle of "no work, no pay" was correctly applied by the Appellate Authority in the absence of an exoneration of charges

The Court applied the principle of "no work, no pay" regarding the regularization of unauthorized absence and the period following dismissal.

The Court differentiated between reinstatement resulting from a finding of "illegal termination" (where back wages are typically granted) and reinstatement based on "sympathy or leniency".

The Court referenced Rule 21 and Rule 18 of the Sashastra Seema Bal Rules, 2009, regarding disciplinary procedures and Section 21 of the SSB Act, 2007.

The Court observed that in the previous litigation round, the disciplinary proceedings were held to be valid and conducted according to due process.

The remand was limited to considering the proportionality of the punishment; consequently, the Appellate Authority’s decision to reinstate the petitioner was not based on any procedural illegality or merit-based exoneration, but rather on a "sympathetic and lenient view".

The Court reasoned that since the petitioner was not kept out of service illegally, the State should not be burdened with wages for services never rendered.

The petitioner did not adequately plead or prove that he was not gainfully employed during the period of dismissal beyond mere averments.

The Court distinguished the precedents cited by the petitioner (e.g., Deepali Gundu Surwase), noting they involved cases where termination was found to be legally unsustainable from the outset.

The Court upheld the Appellate Authority’s order applying the principle of "no work, no pay," but clarified that while the petitioner is denied pay, he shall not be deprived of "continuity of service" for the period between dismissal and reporting for duty.