Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court, led by Chief Justice P.B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha, partly allowed the appeal filed by the State Health Society, Bihar, modifying a Single Judge’s order that had granted 100% back wages to a contractual employee whose services had been terminated in 2013.
The Division Bench held that the employee, though reinstated in 2025 after prolonged litigation, was not entitled to full back wages in light of his five-year delay in approaching the court and the contractual nature of his employment. The Court instead directed payment of 50% back wages from the date of filing his first writ petition in 2018 until reinstatement in January 2025.
“The respondent remained silent from 17.07.2013 till 2018; hence, for this period, he is not entitled to back wages. For the remaining period, he deserves 50% wages, considering his contract-based tenure,” the Court observed.
Facts
The respondent was initially appointed by the District Health Society, Jamui, under the State Health Society, Bihar, on a contractual and tenure-based post. His appointment was periodically extended based on performance. However, in July 2013, his services were terminated on allegations of involvement in criminal offences.
He did not challenge this termination immediately. After remaining silent for almost five years, he approached the Patna High Court in 2018 through CWJC No. 14648 of 2018, seeking reinstatement. The petition was dismissed on 18.10.2022 due to delay and laches.
He then filed an appeal (LPA No. 687 of 2022), which was disposed of with liberty to file a representation. Acting on that liberty, he made a representation dated 27.04.2023, which was rejected on 30.06.2023. Consequently, he filed another writ petition (CWJC No. 15368 of 2023), where the Single Judge ordered reinstatement with 100% back wages.
The State Health Society challenged this order before the Division Bench in LPA No. 626 of 2025, arguing that the employee’s silence and the contractual nature of his appointment disentitled him to full monetary relief.
Issues
- Whether a contractual employee, reinstated after termination, is entitled to 100% back wages despite a long delay in challenging his dismissal.
- Whether the doctrine of delay and laches bars an employee from claiming full relief after remaining silent for several years.
- Whether partial back wages can be granted as a balance of equity and fairness when reinstatement is ordered after prolonged litigation.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The State Health Society contended that the respondent’s appointment was purely contractual, extended periodically, and not equivalent to a regular government post. Therefore, he could not claim full back wages.
The counsel further emphasized that the respondent’s five-year inaction after his termination amounted to acquiescence, thereby extinguishing any right to seek relief. The State also noted that his reinstatement in January 2025 was a compliance measure and not an acknowledgment of entitlement to wages from 2013.
It was argued that the Single Judge’s direction granting 100% back wages was arbitrary and contrary to established principles that require courts to balance equity with the employee’s conduct. The appellants requested modification to restrict back wages to a reasonable percentage, considering both the delay and the contractual nature of employment.
Respondent’s Arguments
Appearing in person, the respondent argued that his termination was unjust and stigmatic, based on false allegations of criminal involvement without due inquiry. He claimed that despite his termination, other similarly placed employees continued in service, proving discriminatory treatment.
He submitted that his reinstatement validated that his termination was illegal, and therefore, denial of full back wages would amount to double punishment — once by wrongful termination and again by withholding salary for the years he remained out of service.
Relying on judicial precedents, he contended that once reinstatement is ordered, 100% back wages are the natural consequence, particularly when the termination was not based on proven misconduct. The respondent sought to justify the delay by claiming that the prolonged administrative process and lack of resources hindered timely legal recourse.
Analysis of the Law
The Bench emphasized that back wages are not an automatic consequence of reinstatement, especially in cases of contractual or irregular appointments. Citing the settled principle that “equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights,” the Court examined the interplay between delay, laches, and entitlement.
It held that the five-year silence (2013–2018) was fatal to the claim for back wages during that period. The Court noted that even after reinstatement was ordered, the respondent could only claim limited monetary relief, as granting full back wages would reward indolence and burden public exchequer unjustly.
The Court distinguished between regular service employment (where full back wages might follow reinstatement) and contractual tenure employment, where compensation is discretionary and equitable rather than automatic.
Precedent Analysis
The Bench’s reasoning reflected consistent reliance on earlier Supreme Court judgments:
- U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479 – Held that reinstatement does not automatically lead to payment of full back wages; relief depends on the facts and conduct of the employee.
- Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (2013) 10 SCC 324 – Reaffirmed that back wages are compensatory, not punitive, and courts must balance equities.
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Pal Singh (2010) 11 SCC 435 – Observed that when an employee approaches court belatedly, full back wages may be denied even if reinstatement is granted.
- J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal (2007) 2 SCC 433 – Clarified that back wages should not be awarded mechanically; they must reflect fairness both to the employer and employee.
These cases collectively guided the High Court’s approach to limiting the monetary relief to 50% back wages from the date of the first writ petition in 2018.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the respondent’s delay in approaching the court and his contractual status were decisive. The Division Bench noted that from 2013 to 2018, he neither challenged the termination nor sought interim relief, thereby forfeiting entitlement for that period.
“The respondent remained silent from 17.07.2013 till 2018; therefore, for this period, he is not entitled to back wages,” the Court held.
At the same time, the Court acknowledged that the respondent had eventually been reinstated, signifying that some relief was merited. To strike a balance of equity, it limited back wages to 50% for the period between 2018 and 2025.
This partial relief, according to the Court, recognized both the delay by the employee and the principle of fairness in ensuring that he was not deprived entirely of compensation for wrongful termination.
Conclusion
The Division Bench modified the Single Judge’s order, directing the State Health Society to pay 50% of back wages to the respondent from the date of filing CWJC No. 14648 of 2018 until his reinstatement on 31 January 2025.
The Court granted four months for compliance and disposed of the appeal accordingly.
“Having regard to the respondent’s conduct and contractual status, 50% back wages shall constitute full and final relief,” the Court concluded.
Implications
This decision reiterates the principle that back wages are not a matter of right, particularly for contractual or tenure-based employees. Courts will balance equity and conduct, denying relief for unexplained delay or laches.
The ruling underscores the judiciary’s effort to prevent misuse of reinstatement orders and ensure fairness to both public employers and employees. It will serve as a benchmark for similar disputes involving contractual reinstatements and delayed litigation.
FAQs
1. Can a contractual employee claim full back wages after reinstatement?
No. Full back wages are not automatic and depend on the nature of employment, conduct, and delay in challenging termination.
2. Why did the Court restrict back wages to 50%?
Because the employee approached the court after five years and was on a contractual post, the Court granted only partial relief as a matter of equity.
3. Does reinstatement always guarantee back wages?
No. Reinstatement ensures reemployment but not necessarily full compensation; back wages are determined based on delay, conduct, and circumstances.
