Wrongful termination set aside by courts entitles employees to 50% back wages and full consequential benefits.

The three applicants, serving as Constables at the North Eastern Police Academy (NEPA), were terminated in November 2017 under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules on the grounds that they were temporary employees/under probation

This Tribunal set aside those terminations on 13.04.2021, and the Meghalaya High Court affirmed that decision on 18.04.2023

Consequently, the respondents reinstated the applicants on 04.08.2023

While the respondents treated the intervening absence as "duty for all purposes" under FR 54-A, they denied the applicants full pay and allowances for that period

The respondents argued that the applicants were not entitled to back wages under the principle of "no work no pay" and noted that the Tribunal had not specifically granted back wages in the previous round of litigation

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to full pay and allowances for the period between their wrongful termination and reinstatement under FR 54-A(3)

2. Whether the principle of "no work no pay" applies when an employee is kept away from work by an illegal act of the employer

Fundamental Rule (FR) 54-A(3), which mandates that when a dismissal/termination is set aside by a court on merits, the intervening period shall be treated as duty and the employee paid full pay/allowances they would have been entitled to

Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak, which establishes that reinstatement with back wages is the normal rule for illegal termination, though courts possess judicial discretion to quantify back wages based on facts

Principle from Commr., Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah, holding that "no work no pay" cannot be applied if the employer's own fault prevented the employee from working

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicants’ absence from duty was not due to their own fault or voluntary act, but resulted from a termination order that was subsequently declared "bad in law" and set aside by judicial intervention

Consequently, the principle of "no work no pay" was held inapplicable because the respondents effectively prevented the applicants from performing their duties

Applying the ratio in Deepali Gundu Surwase, the Tribunal noted that while back wages are the norm, there is no "straight-jacket formula" for the amount

The Tribunal observed that the applicants had not provided specific pleadings or evidence to prove they were not "gainfully employed" during the long intervening period (2017–2023)

Therefore, balancing the illegality of the termination against the lack of proof regarding the applicants' financial status during the hiatus, the Tribunal determined that a partial grant was appropriate

The court ordered the respondents to grant all consequential benefits, including financial upgradation, pay fixation, seniority, and increments. The respondents were directed to complete this exercise within two months of receiving the order