Allowed

T Sudhakar v. the Union of India through the Director General Central Industrial Security Force

Jharkhand HC4 Feb 2026WPC/3880/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CISF employee dismissed in 1997 sought quashing of an order denying back wages under 'no work no pay' and grant of MACP benefits. The Court held respondents could not deny back wages after withdrawing appeal and review on that ground and omitting it from the punishment order; writ allowed with directions to pay.

What did the court decide?

Back wages from 17.10.1997 to 13.01.2014 calculated giving effect to withholding of two increments, plus ACP/MACP benefits; to be paid within 12 weeks.

T Sudhakar Vs the Union of India through… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:2983

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P. (S) No. 3880 of 2019

¶4

T. Sudhakar, Aged about 47 years, S/o T. Venkaiah, R/o Village Bitra Gunta, P.O. Bitra Gunta, P.S. K Thippa and District-Nellore, Pin Code-524142 (Andhra Pradesh). .... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Union of India through the Director General Central Industrial Security Force Headquarter, CGO Complex, P.O. Lodi Road, P.S. South East Delhi, District-New Delhi & Pin Code110003.

¶7

The Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, B.S.L, P.O., P.S. Bokaro Steel City and District-Bokaro.

¶8

The Senior Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, B.S.L, P.O., P.S. Bokaro Steel City and District-Bokaro.

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Dy. S.G.I.

¶13

Mr. Karbir, A.C. to Dy. S.G.I.

¶14

10/Dated:-04.02.2026

¶15

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the

¶17

petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs:

¶18

i. For issuance of appropriate Writ(s)/ Order(s)/Direction(s) in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the letter no. 597 dated 13.12.2018 (Annexure - 10) to the extent wherein the respondents have denied the back wages to the petitioner on the doctrine of "No Work No Pay", which is in utter violation of order dated 27.09.2013 passed in C.W.J.C No. 3733 of 1998 (R).

¶19

ii. For issuance of appropriate Writ(s)/ Order(s)/Direction(s) commanding upon the respondents to extend the financial benefits of 1^st and 2^nd MACP to the petitioner.

¶20

3. The petitioner had earlier moved before this Court in

¶21

CWJC No.3733 of 1998(R) against the order of dismissal dated

¶22

17.10.1997 which was allowed in favour of the petitioner by

¶23

holding as under:

¶24

“11. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that on the basis of the materials on record, no reasonable person would have

¶25

¶26

2026:JHHC:2983

¶27

concluded and recorded a finding that the petitioner was actively involved in the incident. There may have been strong suspicion against the petitioner however, such suspicion is not supported by any substantive evidence on record and therefore, this cannot take place of legal proof. In view of the aforesaid, I find that the order of penalty dated 17.10.1997 as well as appellate order dated 24.03.1998 are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed. However, if materials have been brought on record which would establish the negligence of the petitioner in not detecting the forged entry at serial no. 16 and 17 dated 05.03.1997 which allegedly was made on 26.05.1997, an appropriate minor punishment may be inflicted upon the petitioner and therefore, the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority for a fresh consideration. Needless to say the petitioner would be entitled for all consequential benefits in accordance with law.” Emphasis Supplied

¶28

4. From record it further transpires that the said order passed by the Writ Court has been assailed by the respondentUnion of India before the appellate forum in L.P.A. No.81 of 2014 which was disposed of at the request of appellant. For brevity, the

¶29

order passed by the appellate court is extracted hereinbelow:

¶30

“1. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the impugned order has since been complied with, as the disciplinary authority after considering the entire matter afresh has reinstated the respondent-writ petitioner and thereafter posted him also, therefore nothing survives in the instant Letters Patent Appeal for prosecuting it any further.

¶31

2. Disposed of as such.”

¶32

5. Thereafter, again a Review Application was filed being

¶33

Civil Review No.87 of 2015. For brevity, the grounds mentioned in

¶34

the Review Application, which is annexed as Annexure-6, is

¶35

extracted hereinbelow:-

¶36

“ GROUNDS

¶37

a) For that the Hon'ble Division Bench has not given any finding with respect to the observation of the Hon'ble Single Judge that the Petitioner/ respondent would be entitled for all consequential benefits in accordance with law.

¶38

b) For that Petitioner/ respondent is not entitle for any consequential relief as per the principle of No Work No Pay during the Period the respondent was out of service.

¶39

c) For that Hon'ble Single Judge on the one hand remanded back the matter to Disciplinary Authority to decide it a fresh and give appropriate minor penalty and on the other hand directed to pay all consequential reliefs to petitioner / respondent.

¶40

d) For that even as per opinion of the Hon'ble Single Judge Petitioner / respondent has committed some kind of negligent in duty, therefore it is clear that Petitioner / respondent was out of service for his own negligent conduct and therefore not entitle for any consequential relief for that period.

¶41

e) For that Hon'ble Single Judge has not fully exonerated the petitioner / respondent in respect to the matter, therefore Disciplinary Authority should get an opportunity to decide the matter of consequential benefit in

¶42

¶43

2026:JHHC:2983

¶44

respect to the period when the Petitioner / respondent was out of service. ” Emphasis Supplied

¶45

6. Interestingly, the review petitioner/respondent herein withdrew that Review Application upon instruction. It is also pertinent to mention herein that during pendency of the L.P.A., they passed the impugned order of minor punishment of “ withholding of one increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect by exercising the powers conferred in Rule 32 (1) of CISF Rules, 2001 (Amended Rule 2007) under Rule 34 (ix)” . Further, the intervening period from 17.10.1997 to 13.01.2014 had been ordered to be regularized after disposal of L.P.A.

¶46

7. As stated hereinabove, there was a specific direction that all consequential benefits shall be paid to the petitioner for which, first L.P.A. was filed which was withdrawn and subsequently, review was filed taking a specific ground in review that respondent (petitioner herein) is not entitled for any consequential relief as per the principle of “no work no pay” . However, the said Review Application was also withdrawn upon instruction from the Department. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed.

¶47

8. The stand of the petitioner that even after withdrawal of L.P.A. and Review Application and also after punishing the petitioner with minor punishment, the backwages has not been given.

¶48

9. The stand of the respondents is that when the case was remitted to the department, it is deemed that he is not scotfree and pursuant thereto minor punishment has also been

¶49

¶50

2026:JHHC:2983

¶51

imposed which has not been challenged by the petitioner herein; as such, he is not entitled for any wages.

¶52

10. At this stage, this Court again refers to the ground wherein there was a specific assertion that all consequential benefit shall not be paid on the ground of “no work no pay” but the same was withdrawn by the Union of India and furthermore, even in the order of punishment there is no whisper of no work no pay/non-payment of backwages; thus, there is no scope now for the respondents to raise a grievance that minor punishment was given, as such, he is no entitled for backwages.

¶53

11. From record it appears that the other benefits for which the writ application was filed with respect to A.C.P./M.A.C.P. benefit, it has been informed by learned Dy.S.G.I that petitioner has been found fit for that to which an affidavit has also been filed; as such, the same shall be paid accordingly. However, this Court is not ready to accept the contention of Mr. Singh that once a minor punishment has been imposed, petitioner is not entitled for backwages for the sole reason of withdrawal of Appeal and the Review where specific ground was taken with regard to non-payment of backwages on the principle of “no work no pay” . Even thereafter, the respondents were having time to give an opinion with regard to backwages in the subsequent order of punishment wherein two increments have been withheld; however, unfortunately, the respondents have not even whispered about the backwages in the order of punishment.

¶54

12. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, the writ

¶55

¶56

2026:JHHC:2983

¶57

application stands allowed. The respondents are directed to calculate the backwages; giving effect to the order of punishment of withholding two increments because the same has not been challenged and this Court has not gone into merit of the minor punishment. The backwages as well as the A.C.P./M.A.C.P. benefit for which the petitioner has been found fit as informed by the Dy.S.G.I., all emoluments, from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement i.e. from 17.10.1997 to 13.01.2014, shall be paid within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶58

13. As a result, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed.

¶59

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶60

FEBRUARY 04, 2026 vikas/uploaded 12.03.2026

¶61

T Sudhakar v. the Union of India through the Director General Central Industrial Security Force

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T Sudhakar v. the Union of India through the Director General Central Industrial Security Force

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradip Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Harivansh Choudhary Vs State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary Government of Jharkhand

Kulwanti Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Prakash Prasad Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sabera Bibi Vs Mainul Sheikh

Bajrang Prasad Umar Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Principal Secretary Department of Revenue