Rajasthan High Court Orders Full Back Wages For Employee Who Was Wrongfully Compulsorily Retired, Slams 'No Work, No Pay' Argument

The Rajasthan High Court directed the State to pay salary and wages to the petitioner for the period of his compulsory retirement following the decision of the appellate authority that set aside the order of compulsory retirement after finding that the petitioner's past service records were not so poor to warrant such action.

The bench of Justice Praveer Bhatnagar made reference to a Supreme Court case of Shobha Ram Raturi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Ors. in which similar matter was dealt with and it was held,

“…appellant was entitled to all consequential benefits. The fault lies with the respondents in not having utilised the services of the appellant…Had the appellant been allowed to continue in service, he would have readily discharged his duties. Having restrained him from rendering his services…the respondent cannot be allowed to press the self-serving plea of denying him wages for the period in question, on the plea of the principle of "no work pay."”

The petition was filed by a government employee who was compulsorily retired in 2006. This order was challenged by him wherein the order was set aside in 2014. However, the order denied the wages for the period of his retirement on the ground that since he did not discharge work during the said period, he could not be paid.

This was challenged before the Court.

After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that while quashing the order of compulsory retirement which was based on petitioner's past records, the appellate authority observed that there was no adversity in the service record of the petitioner. It was further opined that the petitioner could not be considered dead wood such that he was compulsorily retired.

Further, the Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment, as above, and held that the analogy was equally applicable in the present case too since his compulsory retirement was found to be without any cogent grounds.

In this background, the petitioner was held to be entitled to salary and other allowances for the period of his compulsory retirement, and the State was directed to pay the same within 3 months.

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.

Title: KC Jain v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 57

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Samdaria; Mr. Arihant Samdaria

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Chandra Shekhar with Mr. Sandeep Sharma, DY.G.C

Click Here To Read/Download Order