Acquittal in Criminal Case Entitles Dismissed Government Employee to Continuity of Service, Not Back Wages for Period Before Acquittal; ‘No Work, No Pay’ Cannot Justify Treating Entire Period as Dies Non: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Constable Gurharjinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 06.10.2026
Citation: CWP-18792-2021
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Namit Kumar
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that where a government employee is dismissed solely on the basis of a criminal conviction which is subsequently set aside, the intervening period between dismissal and reinstatement cannot be treated as dies non or a break in service. The employee is entitled to continuity of service and consequential service benefits, notwithstanding the fact that no duties were performed during that period.
However, the principle of No Work, No Pay may justify denial of salary and allowances for the period preceding acquittal, particularly where the department was not responsible for the criminal proceedings. The employee is entitled to back wages for the period between acquittal and reinstatement where there is no justification for keeping him out of service.
Summary: The petitioner, a Punjab Police Constable, was dismissed from service on 10.02.2004 following his conviction under Sections 304-B and 34 IPC. His conviction was subsequently set aside by the High Court on 05.07.2018, resulting in his acquittal. Although he was reinstated on 20.12.2018, the department treated the entire intervening period as No Work, No Pay (Dies Non) and denied continuity of service, salary, seniority, promotion and consequential benefits.
The High Court observed that the dismissal was founded exclusively upon the criminal conviction, without any independent departmental inquiry or finding of misconduct. Once that conviction was set aside and the department decided against initiating further disciplinary proceedings, the foundation of the dismissal ceased to exist.
Relying upon Munnalal Mishra v. Union of India, 2005 (20) SCT 697, which followed the principle laid down in Union of India v. Jaipal Singh, (2004) 1 SCC 121, the Court distinguished between entitlement to continuity of service and entitlement to back wages. It held that the absence of actual work could justify withholding salary for the period preceding acquittal but could not extinguish the employee’s service continuity or other consequential rights.
The Court further observed that once the petitioner was acquitted, there remained no justification for keeping him out of service until his reinstatement. Consequently, the subsequent intervening period warranted payment of salary and allowances.
Decision: The High Court partly allowed the writ petition and set aside the departmental orders insofar as they treated the period from 10.02.2004 to 20.12.2018 as dies non and denied continuity of service and consequential benefits.
The petitioner was granted continuity of service for the entire period between dismissal and reinstatement, together with consequential service benefits. However, back wages were denied for the period from 10.02.2004 to 05.07.2018, while pay and allowances were granted for the period from acquittal on 05.07.2018 until reinstatement on 20.12.2018, subject to adjustment of amounts already paid. The authorities were directed to calculate and release the consequential benefits within three months.