1 CGHC010148592018 2026:CGHC:36935 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3563 of 2018  Virendra Kumar S/o Shri Shiv Kumar Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bindwalia, Post Office Kaithwalia, District Ghazipur, U. P. Posted As Constable Under Commandant, 9th Battalion, Ch. S. Bal, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Commandant, 7th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Arm Force, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Commandant, 9th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Arm Force, Karli, District- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Alok Dewangan, Advocate For State : Mr. Keshav Gupta, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18.08 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to amend/set aside the part of the Order Kramank 9th Batta./ Cha Sa Ba / Dante / Steno/P/358-A/15, Dated: 9-11/03/2015 issued from the office of Senani 9th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Arm Force, Karli, Dantewada, District Dantewada. Whereby, the petitioner was not awarded back wages for the period 31/03/2012 to 11/03/2015. 10.2 That, this Horn'ble Court may kindly be SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.08.19 14:38:30 +0530 2 pleased to direct the respondents to pay his back wages for the period 31/03/2012 to 11/03/2015, with other consequential retirement benefits with adequate interest thereon from the due date of payment. 10.3 That, any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable vide order dated 03.12.2009. Before joining of service, he was required to fill up the verification form. He answered in negative against Column No. 12 of verification form with regard to criminal antecedents. 3. During course of verification, it was found that an FIR for commission of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 448, 353, 352, 504 & 506 Part II of the IPC, Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 was registered against the petitioner in Ghajipur (U.P.) and charge-sheet was also filed. The petitioner was discharged from services vide order dated 31.03.2012. WPS No. 2630 of 2012 was filed assailing said order, which was dismissed, thereafter W.A. No. 331 of 2014 was filed, which was allowed and matter was remitted back to the authority concerned to reconsider the case of the petitioner. Director General of Police vide order dated 09.03.2015 allowed the mercy petition and passed an order to reinstate the petitioner in services treating the period of absence as “no work, no pay”. 4. The petitioner has challenged the observation made by the authority concerned, whereby the period during which the petitioner remained out of service has been treated as “no work, no pay”, and has claimed salary for the said period. A specific ground has been raised in the writ petition, wherein it 3 is pleaded that the petitioner was not employed gainfully anywhere else during said period and therefore, he is entitled for back-wages. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that as there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, he was not aware of the fact that his name was included in the alleged FIR, and therefore, the Director General of Police allowed mercy petition preferred by the petitioner. He would contend that during said period, petitioner was nowhere gainfully employed, therefore, he is entitled for arrears of salary. He would also submit that the State in its return, have not denied the averments made in para 9.4 of the writ petition. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. It is argued that the petitioner failed to disclose criminal antecedents in verification form, and therefore, he was discharged from services vide order dated 31.03.2012. He would contend that the authority concerned rightly declared the period for which the petitioner was not in service as “no work, no pay”, as the petitioner did not work during said period. It is argued that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 8. In the present case, the mercy petition preferred by the petitioner was allowed by the Director General of Police on the ground that the petitioner was not arrested, he would have not aware of inclusion of his name in the FIR, in criminal case he was acquitted, and at the time of incident, his age was 21 years. The authority concerned passed an order of reinstatement and applied the principle of “no work, no pay” for the period during which the 4 petitioner remained out of service. 9. Perusal of writ petition would show that the petitioner has taken a specific ground to the effect that he was not gainfully employed after removal from services till reinstatement. The State in its return, have not controverted the pleadings made in para 9.4 and as the petitioner was reinstated in services, the authority concerned should have considered claim of the petitioner for arrears of salary. 10. Having considered the facts discussed-above, the observation made in order dated 09.03.2015 with regard to “no work, no pay” is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities shall conduct an inquiry as to whether petitioner was gainfully employed anywhere between 31.03.2012 till 09.03.2015 and accordingly his claim shall be decided by the authority concerned. 11. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant