The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that a former power distribution employee, dismissed after conviction in a corruption case and later acquitted on appeal, is not entitled to full back wages. The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, dismissed the writ appeal filed by Ram Prasad Nayak (70), who challenged the denial of back wages for the period between his dismissal and superannuation.
Background of the Case
Ram Prasad Nayak was convicted on December 11, 2012, by a special judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Based on this conviction, the competent authority dismissed him from service. He retired on August 31, 2018, while his criminal appeal was pending. On May 8, 2020, the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted him on merits.
Employer's Response
Following representations, the power distribution company withdrew the dismissal order on February 5, 2021, and granted notional restoration with limited continuity benefits. However, it denied actual back wages and monetary benefits for the period from April 1, 2013, to August 31, 2018.
Court's Reasoning
The bench noted that on the date of dismissal, the order was founded upon a valid and subsisting judgment of conviction rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction. It held that merely because the appellant was subsequently acquitted in appeal, the same would not automatically obliterate the legal consequences which had already ensued on account of the conviction.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court observed that an employee dismissed due to conviction is not entitled to back wages as a matter of right upon later acquittal, since the employee did not render service during the period he remained out of employment.
Key Principles Applied
- No Work No Pay: The court applied the principle that wages are payable only for work actually done.
- Severance of Employer-Employee Relationship: The relationship remained severed during the relevant period due to the dismissal order.
- No Indefeasible Right: Even if the acquittal was on merits, it did not create an indefeasible right to salary for the period of non-service.
Conclusion
The bench found no illegality or infirmity in the single judge's orders dated April 15, 2025, and February 26, 2026, which had rejected Nayak's claim. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the denial of back wages was legally valid.
