News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 157 | 2026:CGHC:8574
February 17, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has refused to grant back wages and other financial benefits to a government employee for the period he remained under suspension, even though his suspension was later treated as continuous service.
In a judgment delivered on February 17, 2026, Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal dismissed a writ petition filed by Ashish Gupta, a cook posted at an Aadivasi Boys Hostel in Bodla, Kabirdham district. The case arose after Gupta challenged an order dated August 6, 2019, which reinstated him in service but denied pay and allowances for the suspension period.
Gupta was suspended on August 23, 2016, following an inspection at the hostel, during which he was accused of treating students cruelly and physically assaulting them. A departmental enquiry was initiated. After completion of the proceedings, the disciplinary authority imposed a minor penalty of withholding one increment without cumulative effect.
While reinstating him, the authority directed that the suspension period be treated as time spent on duty for the purpose of service continuity. However, it specifically denied salary and allowances for that period. Gupta approached the High Court, arguing that once the suspension period was treated as continuous service, he was entitled to all consequential benefits, including back wages.
The State opposed the plea, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Om Pal Singh v. Disciplinary Authority, which clarified that reinstatement following a lesser punishment does not automatically entitle an employee to back wages or consequential benefits.
The High Court examined the legal position and noted that reduction of penalty from dismissal to a minor punishment does not amount to exoneration. Where misconduct is proved, reinstatement alone cannot be treated as a basis for granting salary for the suspension period as a matter of right.
The Court emphasized that it is within the disciplinary authority’s discretion to decide how the suspension period should be treated. In this case, although the authority granted continuity of service, it denied pay and allowances on the ground that the petitioner had not actually worked during that time. The Court found this approach legally sound and consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Holding that there was no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The ruling reinforces the principle that reinstatement after minor punishment does not automatically entitle a government employee to back wages unless specifically ordered.
Case Reference : WPS No. 3497 of 2020, Ashish Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others; Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Ashesh Kumar, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate; Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer.
