Treating an intervening period as duty does not automatically confer entitlement to full back wages.

The applicant, a police officer, was dismissed from service on 9 December 2013 following disciplinary proceedings arising from allegations recorded by him in the Daily Diary against senior police officers.

His dismissal was subsequently set aside on procedural grounds, including alleged violation of principles of natural justice and involvement of the concerned disciplinary authority, and he was reinstated with a direction for a de novo enquiry.

The de novo enquiry recommended forfeiture of one annual increment and treatment of the period from 9 December 2013 to 2 July 2018 as dies non under the principle of “no work, no pay”.

Police Headquarters partly accepted the recommendation, imposed forfeiture of one annual increment, but ordered that the intervening period be treated as “period spent on duty”; payment of the consequential dues was made subject to Government/Home Department sanction.

Police Headquarters assessed the dues at approximately ₹35.031 lakh and sought sanction from the Home Department, which declined to agree to the proposal by order dated 6 May 2022.

The applicant challenged that decision and sought release of the assessed amount.

1. Whether the applicant was automatically entitled to full salary and allowances for the period from 9 December 2013 to 2 July 2018 merely because that period was subsequently treated as “period spent on duty” after his reinstatement.

2. Whether the Home Department’s refusal to sanction payment of approximately ₹35.031 lakh, despite the recommendation and assessment by Police Headquarters, was arbitrary or legally unsustainable.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the service-law principle of “no work, no pay,” while recognising that the principle is not inflexible and that entitlement to back wages depends on the circumstances of each case, including the manner in which dismissal was set aside, whether the employee was exonerated on merits, whether misconduct was ultimately established, and whether actual service was rendered.

The Tribunal distinguished treatment of an intervening period as duty for purposes such as continuity of service, seniority, qualifying service and pension from an unconditional entitlement to actual salary for the period of non-service.

It further applied the principle that an administrative recommendation or calculation does not create a vested right where payment remains subject to approval or sanction by the competent authority.

Judicial review permits interference only where the administrative decision is contrary to law, mala fide, based on irrelevant considerations or manifestly arbitrary; the Tribunal cannot substitute its own view merely because another view is possible.

The Tribunal held that the applicant had not been completely or honourably exonerated: the original dismissal was set aside because of procedural defects, but the de novo enquiry still resulted in the penalty of forfeiture of one annual increment.

Although Police Headquarters directed that the intervening period be treated as duty, that direction did not amount to an unconditional order for payment of full back wages because it expressly required sanction from the Government/Home Department.

Since the applicant had performed no duties during the relevant period and the disciplinary proceedings had not ended in complete exoneration, the principle of “no work, no pay” remained relevant and full salary could not be claimed as an automatic consequence of reinstatement.

The Home Department was the competent sanctioning authority, and its refusal to accept the Police Headquarters’ proposal could not be characterised as arbitrary in the absence of any statutory provision making sanction mandatory once the proposal had been forwarded.

It held that treating the period from 9 December 2013 to 2 July 2018 as duty did not confer an enforceable right to full back wages of ₹35.031 lakh, particularly because the applicant was not completely exonerated and payment was expressly subject to Government sanction.

The Original Application was dismissed, and the Home Department’s order dated 6 May 2022 refusing sanction was upheld.

The Tribunal clarified that the dismissal of the application would not affect continuity of service or other notional/service benefits admissible under the order dated 15 June 2020 and the applicable rules, except the claim for actual back wages.

There was no order as to costs.