Acquittal doesn’t guarantee back wages after conviction-based dismissal: Chhattisgarh high court

RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh high court has refused to grant full back wages to a former power distribution employee who was dismissed after conviction in a graft case but later acquitted on appeal, holding that acquittal does not automatically erase the legal consequences of a valid dismissal order passed when the conviction was in force. A division bench headed by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, with Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, on May 11 dismissed writ appeal filed by Ram Prasad Nayak (70), who had challenged the denial of back wages for the period between his dismissal and superannuation.

Nayak was convicted on December 11, 2012, by a special judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Based on that conviction, the competent authority dismissed him from service. He retired on August 31, 2018, while his criminal appeal was pending. On 8 May 2020, the high court set aside the conviction and acquitted him on merits. Following representations, the power distribution company withdrew the dismissal order on February 5, 2021, and granted notional restoration with limited continuity benefits, but denied actual back wages and monetary benefits for April 1, 2013, to August 31, 2018.

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,” and 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 the Supreme Court precedents, the court held 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.

The bench further held that even if the acquittal was on merits, it did not create an “indefeasible right” to salary for the period of non-service, observing that the employer-employee relationship “remained severed” during the relevant period due to the dismissal order. It applied the principle of “no work no pay,” and found no illegality or infirmity in the single judge’s orders dated April 15, 2025, and February 26, 2026, that had rejected Nayak’s claim.