Gokul Prasad Upadhyay vs State of M.P. and Others

Rajendra Menon, J.—Claiming salary for the period 14.5.2005 till January 2011, when he retired from service, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner was working in the respondents'' establishment and he was implicated in a case for offence under sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Petitioner was convicted by the trial court and ultimately on an appeal being filed before the High Court, he has been acquitted. After his acquittal he has been reinstated in service and after reinstatement as the intervening period, when he was out of employment has been treated as ''no work no wage'' only for the purpose of payment of salary, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to emphasize that once the petitioner is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him and when he is exonerated of the allegations levelled in the criminal case, the respondents cannot deny to him the salary for the intervening period.

The aforesaid question with regard to payment of backwages for the period when the employee remained out of service due to his involvement in the criminal case is no more in dispute. The law in this regard has been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , and again in the case of The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Vs. M. Prabhakar Rao, , the principle has been crystallized by the Supreme Court in the light of the law laid down in the case of Baldev Singh (supra).

It has been held by the Supreme Court that involvement of an employee in a criminal case is a result of his act of commission and omission and as he is prevented from working because of his own act, he shall not be entitled to any backwages for the period he was prevented and treating the period for which he remain out of employment on the principle of ''no work no wage'' has been approved by the Supreme Court.

The said principle laid down in the case of Baldev Singh (supra) has again been followed in subsequent judgment in the case of M. Prabhakar Rao (supra), wherein similar principle has been reiterated.

That apart, even a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anoop Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. and Others, , has approved the aforesaid principle.

Keeping in view the aforesaid, I see no reason to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.