Subsequent acquittal does not entitle an employee to back wages for the period of non-service.

The petitioner, appointed as a Sainik in the Home Guards in 2006, was posted at Korba when a complaint under Section 376 IPC was lodged against him in March 2022.

He was arrested on 29 March 2022, suspended retrospectively from that date, and terminated from service on 30 March 2022.

After his acquittal by the competent criminal court, he was reinstated on 22 June 2023.

He claimed salary, back wages, and consequential benefits for the period from 28 March 2022 to 22 June 2023.

The petitioner had earlier approached the High Court in W.P.(S) No. 174 of 2023 and was granted liberty to approach the competent authority.

Pursuant thereto, he submitted his claim, which was rejected by orders dated 17 December 2025 and 1 April 2026.

The State defended the orders, contending that the claim had been duly considered in accordance with the applicable rules and that no illegality was established.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to back wages and consequential monetary benefits for the period during which he remained out of service because of his arrest, notwithstanding his subsequent acquittal?

Whether the orders dated 17 December 2025 and 1 April 2026 rejecting the petitioner’s claim warranted interference in writ jurisdiction?

The Court applied the principle of “no work, no pay,” holding that an employee who did not actually discharge official duties during the relevant period cannot ordinarily claim wages for that period.

It relied on State Bank of India v. Mohammed Abdul Rahim, (2013) 11 SCC 67, which held that a subsequent acquittal does not retrospectively erase the legal consequences arising during the period of conviction or incarceration and does not automatically create an entitlement to back wages.

The Court also referred to Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, (1996) 11 SCC 603; Union of India v. Jaipal Singh, (2004) 1 SCC 121; and Baldev Singh v. Union of India, (2005) 8 SCC 747.

Further, relying on Ram Prasad Nayak v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, W.P.(S) No. 1473 of 2021, decided on 15 April 2025, it reiterated that an employee who becomes unavailable for service because of involvement in a criminal case or incarceration is not entitled to back wages merely because he is subsequently acquitted.

The Court held that the petitioner’s removal from service was occasioned by his arrest and was, at the relevant time, a valid administrative action.

Although his subsequent acquittal justified his reinstatement, it did not automatically confer a retrospective right to salary for the period during which he neither worked nor discharged official duties.

Applying the “no work, no pay” principle and the rule stated in Mohammed Abdul Rahim, the Court found that the acquittal did not retrospectively invalidate the consequences of the petitioner’s arrest or establish that the department had unlawfully prevented him from working.

Since the competent authority had considered and rejected the claim, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate illegality, violation of applicable rules, or other grounds for judicial interference, the impugned orders were upheld.

It held that the petitioner was not entitled to back wages or salary for the period from 28 March 2022 to 22 June 2023, merely on account of his subsequent acquittal, because he had not rendered service during that period.

The orders dated 17 December 2025 and 1 April 2026 rejecting his claim were found to be lawful and were not interfered with.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit.