Subsequent acquittal does not entitle an employee to wages for suspension arising from criminal proceedings.

The petitioner, an English teacher, was suspended after a criminal case was registered against him. He was convicted by the Sessions Court, but the High Court subsequently allowed his criminal appeal and acquitted him; he was then reinstated in service

On his request for payment for the suspension period, the second respondent first issued an endorsement dated 25 August 2025 indicating entitlement to subsistence allowance, but later issued an endorsement dated 7 August 2026 rejecting his claim for wages for that period

The petitioner challenged both endorsements under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and sought payment for the suspension period

Under Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, subsequent acquittal does not, by itself, entitle an employee to back wages where the employee’s involvement in criminal proceedings and resulting inability to work—not an unlawful act of the employer—kept the employee out of service; the circumstances of each case must be considered.

Union of India v. Jaipal Singh, as discussed through Raj Narain v. Union of India in Sri Rakhesh B. v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., similarly distinguishes criminal proceedings from an employer’s wrongful exclusion of an employee, while recognising that a different consideration may arise where prosecution is malicious or vexatious.

The principle of “no work, no pay” does not apply where the employer unlawfully prevents an employee from working, but may apply where the employee’s own circumstances—not attributable to the employer—result in the employee being out of service.

The back-wage principles in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya concern wrongful termination and did not govern this case.

The Court also treated the later endorsement as an administrative correction of an earlier decision, rather than an impermissible review.

The Court found that the petitioner’s suspension followed the criminal case and that his subsequent acquittal did not establish that the employer had wrongfully kept him out of service.

It therefore applied Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore and the related authorities, holding that the petitioner’s circumstances did not warrant payment for the suspension period under the “no work, no pay” principle.

The Court distinguished Deepali Gundu Surwase because that case concerned wrongful termination.

It further held that the first endorsement had been issued without considering the relevant legal position and that the authority could correct it through the later administrative endorsement.

It rejected the challenge that the authority had impermissibly reviewed its earlier decision and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit.