The Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to grant back wages to a retired employee of the state power distribution company who was acquitted in a corruption case years after being dismissed from service. The court held that a subsequent acquittal does not automatically erase the legal consequences of a dismissal that was based on a valid conviction at the time it was passed.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal delivered the judgment on May 11, 2026, while dismissing a writ appeal filed by Ram Prasad Nayak.
Background of the Case
Ram Prasad Nayak joined the Electricity Board in 1977 and later rose to the post of Supervisor (Civil). A corruption case was registered against him, and he was eventually convicted by a Special Court in December 2012 under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Following the conviction, he was dismissed from service.
Nayak challenged the conviction before the High Court. During the pendency of the criminal appeal, he retired on attaining the age of superannuation in August 2018. In May 2020, the High Court set aside his conviction and acquitted him.
After the acquittal, the power distribution company withdrew the dismissal order and granted him notional restoration of service benefits. However, it denied actual salary and back wages for the period between his dismissal and retirement.
Employee’s Argument
The appellant argued that his acquittal was on merits and not merely on technical grounds. He contended that the criminal court had found no proof of demand or acceptance of illegal gratification.
His counsel submitted that once the conviction, which formed the sole basis of dismissal, was set aside, he should be treated as having been fully exonerated and therefore entitled to salary and other consequential benefits for the period he remained out of service.
Court’s Observations
The Division Bench was not convinced by these submissions.
The court noted that when the dismissal order was passed, it was based on a valid conviction delivered by a competent criminal court. Therefore, the employer's action was legally justified at that time.
“The appellant stood convicted by the competent criminal Court... Consequent upon such conviction, the appellant was dismissed from service,” the Bench observed.
The judges further held that a later acquittal does not automatically wipe out all legal consequences that had already followed from the conviction.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, including Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board and Union of India v. Jaipal Singh, the court said that an employee dismissed due to conviction cannot claim back wages as a matter of right merely because the conviction is subsequently overturned.
The Bench also invoked the principle of “no work, no pay,” observing that Nayak had not rendered service during the relevant period and therefore could not automatically claim salary for those years.
Decision
Finding no error in the earlier orders passed by the Single Judge, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal.
The court concluded that there was no illegality or infirmity warranting interference and held that the appellant was not entitled to back wages for the period he remained out of service following his dismissal based on conviction.
The writ appeal was accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: Ram Prasad Nayak v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Case Number: WA No. 358 of 2026
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Decision Date: May 11, 2026
