1 CGHC010350612022 2026:CGHC:36688 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7539 of 2022 Smt. Sukanti Bhoi Wd/o Late Rameshwar Bhoi Aged About 73 Years R/o Village And Post Baloda, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamnud Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education, Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent WPS No. 505 of 2023 Smt. Sukanti Bhoi Wd/o Late Rameshwar Bhoi, Aged About 73 Years R/o Village And Post Baloda, Police Station Saraipali, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 2 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education, Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. HB Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Aasha Nirmalkar, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Ujjawal Choubey, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J Order on Board (17th August, 2026) Since the petitioner in one petition is seeking grant of back- wages for a certain period and in another seeking consequential pension revision and other retiral benefits, both these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is that husband of the petitioner namely Rameshwar Bhoi was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 20.9.1959 and was transferred from Govt. Primary School, Bharseli, Block-Balodabazar, erstwhile Distt. Raipur on 30.7.1980. He was terminated from service due to long absence vide order dated 7.3.1991. In compliance of the order dated 23.9.1991 passed by the State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, termination of Rameshwar Bhoi was set aside and he was permitted to join his duty. However, since another person was posted in his place, therefore, he could not join his service. After attaining the age of superannuation, he filed a petition i.e. 3 WP No.4457/2005 seeking payment of retiral dues which was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the Pension Redressal Committee to consider his grievance. Despite that, his grievance was not redressed and he died on 12.9.2009. 2.1 After death of Rameshwar Bhoi, the petitioner being his wife filed a petition i.e. WPS No.1187/2014 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 10.5.2017 and she was held entitled to full pension by treating the deceased employee to have retired while in government service on the date he attained the age of superannuation, the deceased employee was also held entitled to entire arrears of pensionary benefits along with interest and the petitioner was also held entitled to entire arrears of family pension along with interest. But since all monetary benefits were not granted to the petitioner, therefore, she filed a contempt petition bearing No.461/2018. In between, the respondent granted monetary benefits to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.17,76,051/-, therefore, the contempt petition was disposed of, reserving liberty with the petitioner to proceed in accordance with law with regard to correct pay fixation, pension and other dues as claimed. During pendency of the aforesaid contempt petition, vide order dated 7.12.2020 (Annexure P/2), the State of CG, School Education Department, declined to grant back-wages in favour of the deceased employee for the period from 14.8.1980 to 26.5.1992 and from 22.9.1994 to 31.4.2004 i.e. for a total period of 21 years 03 months and 4 23 days, therefore, the petitioner has filed WPS No.7539/2022 seeking the following relief: “A. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition by setting-aside the impugned order (Annexure P/2) dated 07.12.2020, so far it denies wages after regularization of leave as no work no pay in para 7 of the said order, since no opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing it against him and her husband i.e. deceased employee, therefore after quashing no work no pay full wages be granted for the period of 14.08.1980 to 26.05.1992 and 22.09.1994 to 31.04.2004. B. Cost of the petition be awarded and C. Any other relief or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deems fit, be also awarded.” 2.2 Since pay fixation of the petitioner’s husband was not done in accordance with law resulting in less pension to the petitioner and also she is not granted departmental provident fund, leave encashment, family pension and amount of group insurance etc. by refixation of pay, therefore, in light of liberty granted to the petitioner by this Court in order dated 25.11.2022 passed in Contempt Case (C) No.461/2018, she has filed WPS No.505/2023 seeking the following relief: “A. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition by making actual payment and difference of pension revision and also extend the benefits of departmental provident fund, leave encashment, family pension and group insurance etc., by extending benefit like similarly situated persons as held by Apex Court 5 actually, since the order of no work no pay is under challenge in WPS No. 7539/2022 on the ground of no opportunity has been given to the petitioner or her husband. B. Cost of the petition be awarded and C. Any other relief or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deems fit, be also awarded.” 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the order dated 7.12.2020 (Annexure P/2) has been passed after death of the deceased employee (husband of the petitioner) that too without providing any opportunity of hearing, therefore, it is not sustainable in the eye of law. He further submits that the deceased employee was always ready and willing to join his service but he was never permitted to join, therefore, the State Administrative Tribunal not only quashed the termination order dated 7.3.1991 but also held him entitled for minimum pay scale of Assistant Teacher. As such, the order of “No Work, No Pay”, is completely illegal and liable to be set aside. Hence both these petitions deserve to be allowed and the relief claimed therein may be granted to the petitioner. 4. The State/respondent has filed its reply. Learned counsel for the State/respondent, referring to its reply, would submit that during pendency of the contempt petition, a total sum of Rs.18,80,642/- was paid to the petitioner under the head of GPF, gratuity, pension and interest. Thus, all monetary benefits, which the deceased employee 6 was entitled to, has already been paid. He submits that family pension of the petitioner has also been fixed and therefore, arrears of pension is paid to the petitioner. Since the deceased employee never joined his duty for the period from 14.8.1980 to 26.5.1992 and from 22.9.1994 to 31.4.2004 i.e. for a total period of 21 years 03 months and 23 days, he is not entitled to get back-wages for this period or consequent revision of pay. Both these petitions being devoid of any substance are, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The principal issue is whether the petitioner is entitled to back- wages for the period from 14.08.1980 to 26.05.1992 and from 22.09.1994 to 31.04.2004, merely because the termination of the deceased employee was set aside by the State Administrative Tribunal. The settled position of law is that setting aside termination does not automatically confer an absolute right to full back-wages. The grant of back-wages depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, including the conduct of the employee and the reason for his absence. In Union of India v. Jaipal Singh, (2004) 1 SCC 121 and State of Kerala v. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, (2007) 6 SCC 524, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognised that the principle of “No work, No pay” may appropriately be applied depending upon the circumstances. In the present case, although the termination order was set aside in 1991, 7 the deceased employee admittedly did not join duty thereafter. He also did not take any effective legal steps for nearly two decades to enforce the Tribunal’s order or to establish that the respondent had prevented him from joining. No contemporaneous material, such as joining reports, representations or proceedings, has been produced to demonstrate that he repeatedly attempted to join but was refused. Mere assertion that he was ready and willing to join cannot, in the absence of supporting material and corresponding conduct, justify payment of salary for more than 21 years. 7. As per reply along with documents filed by the State/respondent in WPS No.505/2023, it is found that after death of petitioner’s husband namely Rameshwar Bhoi, the petitioner has been paid a total sum of Rs.18,80,642/- towards GPF, gratuity, pension and interest. When a specific question was posed to the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner whether the petitioner is getting pensionary benefits or not, he submits that the petitioner is not being paid family pension, however, he admits that arrears of pension and gratuity to the tune of Rs.11,20,382/- has been paid to the petitioner. The aforesaid fact shows that if pension of the deceased employee had been fixed, then there was no occasion to pay arrears of family pension as already a total sum of Rs.11,20,382/- under the head of family pension and gratuity has been paid to the petitioner (page 43 of WPS No.505/2023) which has also been conceded by learned senior counsel for the 8 petitioner. Once the claim for back-wages fails, the consequential claim for retrospective pay fixation and revision of pensionary/retiral benefits also cannot be sustained. 8. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this Court finds no substance in both these petitions. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy available to her under the law if the pensionary benefit is not being paid to her. No order as to cost(s). 9. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Sd/ (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2026.08.20 15:46:21 +0530