1 CGHC010189232026 2026:CGHC:37365 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4081 of 2026 1 - Pritam Rathore S/o Shri D.P. Rathore Aged About 41 Years R/o House No. 167, Parshapar, Post Kosabadi, P.S. Rampur, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home/ Urban Administration, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Nagar Sena, Fire And Emergency Services And S.D.R.F., Head Office Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Commandant Home Guard, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - District Commandant District Home Guards And District Firefighter Office, Home Guard, Korba Division Korba Chhattisgarh 5 - Senior Staff Officer Nagar Sena, Fire And Emergency Services And S.D.R.F., Head Office Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate For State : Mr. Anadi Sharma, Panel Lawyer (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 20/08/2026 1. By the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.08.24 10:48:52 +0530 2 reliefs:- “10:1. that, the respondents may kindly be directed to submit the entire records as regards the petitioner's case. 10:2. that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be directed the respondents to quash the order of respondent No. 5 as reminder Appeal Case No./883A/Nya. Case/2025 Raipur dated 17.12.2025 and Appeal Case No. 514 /Nya. Case / 2026 Raipur Dated 1.4.2026 (Ann.-P/1). Further, may kindly be direct the respondents to pay full back wages to the petitioner for the period from 28.03.2022 to 22.6.2023 (about 15 months), till reinstatement at the earliest. 10:3. that, the respondents may kindly be directed to grant with interest @ 6%-9% per annum on delayed payment of the period of suspension and termination. 10:4. This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass any order or issue any suitable writ as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case including the cost of the petition” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Sainik in Home Guards, Janjgir, in 2006. In March 2022, while posted at Korba, a complaint under Section 376 IPC was lodged against him, pursuant to which he was arrested on 29.03.2022. The authorities suspended him with retrospective effect from 29.03.2022 and terminated his services on 30.03.2022. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner subsequently acquitted by the competent Court and was reinstated in service on 22.06.2023. He then sought payment of salary/back wages and consequential benefits for the period from 3 28.03.2022 to 22.06.2023, approximately 15 months. Learned counsel further submits that, for redressal of his grievance, the petitioner had filed W.P.(S) No. 174/2023 before this Court, wherein he was granted liberty to approach the competent authority. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner approached the competent authority; however, the respondent/Department, vide orders dated 17.12.2025 and 01.04.2026, rejected the claim of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/State, per contra, submits that the claim of the petitioner has been duly considered by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations. It is further submitted that the orders dated 17.12.2025 and 01.04.2026 have been passed after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any illegality in the said orders warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. He, therefore, submits that the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner’s termination from service was occasioned by his arrest, which, at the relevant time, constituted a valid administrative action. Although the petitioner was subsequently acquitted by the competent Court, the fact remains that he did not actually perform any duties during the period for which he is claiming back wages. The competent 4 authority, after considering the petitioner’s claim, has rejected the same on the ground that the petitioner had not rendered any service during the relevant period. The principle of “No Work, No Pay” is therefore applicable, and the petitioner cannot claim wages for a period during which he admittedly did not discharge any official duties. 6. The subsequent acquittal of the petitioner, by itself, does not confer a right to back wages for the entire period during which he remained out of service. In the absence of any finding that the departmental action was wholly illegal or that the petitioner was prevented from discharging his duties without justification, no direction for payment of back wages can be issued. 7. In the matter of State Bank of India v. Mohammed Abdul Rahim (2013) 11 SCC 67, the Supreme Court considering the earlier decisions in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore Vs. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board Himmatnagar, (1996) 11 SCC 603, Union of India Vs. Jaipal Singh, (2004) 1 SCC 121 and Baldev Sinah v. Union of India (2005) 8 SCC 747, held that subsequent acquittal of Government servant though obliterates his conviction, does not operate retrospectively to wipe out the legal consequences of the conviction under the Act, and observed as under:- “11. During the aforesaid period there was, therefore, a prohibition in law on the appellant Bank from employing him. If the respondent could not have remained employed with the appellant Bank during the said period on account 5 of the provisions of the Act, it is difficult to visualise as to how he would be entitled to payment of salary during that period. His subsequent acquittal though obliterates his conviction, does not operate retrospectively to wipe out the legal consequences of the conviction under the Act. The entitlement of the respondent to back wages has to be judged on the aforesaid basis. His reinstatement, undoubtedly, became due following his acquittal and the same has been granted by the appellant Bank” 8. This Court, in the matter of Ram Prasad Nayak v. State of C.G. & Others, decided in W.P.(S) No. 1473/2021 on 15.04.2025, has observed thus:- “Employee involved himself in a crime but acquitted later is not entitled to back-wages, as he had disabled himself for rendering the service on account of conviction or incarceration in jail.” 9. In view of the above, the orders dated 17.12.2025 and 01.04.2026, whereby the petitioner’s claim for back wages was considered and rejected, do not warrant interference by this Court. The petitioner has failed to establish any illegality or violation of the applicable rules in the impugned orders. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep