Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ‘No Work No Pay’ After Reinstatement Post-Compromise Acquittal; Directs Consideration of Continuity of Service

Case Name: Bal Krishan v. State of Haryana and Others

Date of Judgment: 8 January 2026

Citation: CWP-11589-2021

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court declined to interfere with the denial of back wages to a police employee who was dismissed from service upon conviction and later reinstated after acquittal on the basis of compromise. The Court held that the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ was rightly applied, as the dismissal was a direct consequence of a valid conviction by the trial court. However, the Court directed the competent authority to consider the petitioner’s claim regarding continuity of service and counting of the dismissal period for service benefits in accordance with law.

Summary: The petitioner, a member of the Haryana Police, was implicated in an FIR registered under Sections 420, 506 and 120-B IPC and was placed under suspension during the pendency of the criminal proceedings. He was convicted by the trial court in July 2014, and his appeal was dismissed. Consequent to the conviction, he was dismissed from service without a departmental inquiry, as permissible in law.

Subsequently, the petitioner filed a criminal revision before the High Court, which was allowed in February 2020 on the basis of a compromise between the parties, resulting in setting aside of the conviction. Following this, the petitioner was reinstated in service by the State through an order dated 26 June 2020. However, financial benefits for the period during which he remained out of service were denied on the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’.

Challenging the denial of back wages, the petitioner contended that since his conviction was ultimately set aside, he was entitled to full financial benefits and continuity of service. The State opposed the claim, asserting that the petitioner had been validly dismissed following conviction and that reinstatement itself was a lenient measure extended after acquittal on compromise.

The High Court held that once the petitioner was convicted by the trial court and the conviction was affirmed in appeal, the department was justified in dismissing him without holding a departmental inquiry. The subsequent acquittal on the basis of compromise did not render the earlier dismissal illegal or wrongful. Accordingly, the Court found no infirmity in denial of back wages.

However, noting that the impugned order was silent on the issue of continuity of service, and in view of the statement made by the State during hearing, the Court held that the petitioner’s claim for counting of the dismissal period towards length of service deserved consideration by the competent authority.

Decision: The writ petition was disposed of. The denial of back wages was upheld. The Director General of Police was directed to consider the petitioner’s claim regarding counting of the dismissal period for the purpose of continuity of service and service benefits, in accordance with law, within a period of three months.