The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that contractual employees are not entitled to salary for periods during which they were removed from service due to pending criminal proceedings, even if the FIR against them is subsequently quashed. The judgment underscores the distinction between contractual and regular service, and the absence of a legal obligation to compensate for non-performance.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Ramswarup Sharma, was employed on a contractual basis as a Clerk at Zila Shiksha Kendra, Guna. His employment was terminated by order dated 06.07.2021 following the registration of an FIR against him under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He claimed salary for the period from 07.07.2021 to 07.01.2025, arguing that his removal was unjustified and that the subsequent quashing of the FIR entitled him to back wages.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was engaged on a contractual basis and did not hold a regular post
- An FIR was registered against him on 05.07.2021 by Police Station Kotwali, Guna, under Section 306/34 IPC
- His contractual service was terminated by order dated 06.07.2021, citing government instructions on employment during criminal proceedings
- The petitioner filed W.P. No. 13519/2021 challenging the termination order, which was dismissed by this Court on 29.07.2021 on merits
- The FIR was quashed by this Court on 02.03.2023 in M.Cr.C. No. 52034/2021
- The petitioner was reinstated in service after the quashing of the FIR
- He remained out of service from 07.07.2021 to 07.01.2025
- The respondents issued communications dated 30.06.2025 and 04.02.2026 rejecting his claim for salary for the above period
- The petitioner did not file any representation or appeal against the termination order dated 06.07.2021 prior to the quashing of the FIR
Procedural History
- 05.07.2021: FIR registered against petitioner under Section 306/34 IPC
- 06.07.2021: Contractual service terminated by order
- 29.07.2021: W.P. No. 13519/2021 challenging termination dismissed on merits
- 02.03.2023: FIR quashed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 52034/2021
- 07.01.2025: Petitioner reinstated in service
- 30.06.2025 & 04.02.2026: Respondents denied claim for salary for period 07.07.2021 to 07.01.2025
- 2026: Writ Petition No. 12905/2026 filed before the High Court at Gwalior
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner’s Position: He was illegally kept away from work due to a criminal case that was later quashed. Since the termination was based on an FIR that was ultimately set aside, his absence was not attributable to him, and he is entitled to salary for the entire period.
Respondent’s Position: The termination was lawful under government instructions. The petitioner’s own conduct led to the FIR. The termination order was upheld by this Court on merits. No work was rendered during the period, and no legal obligation exists to pay salary for non-performance.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to pay salary for the period from 07.07.2021 to 07.01.2025, along with interest and costs.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a contractual employee is entitled to salary for a period during which he was lawfully terminated due to pending criminal proceedings, even if the FIR against him is later quashed by the Court.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that since the FIR was quashed, the basis for termination ceased to exist. He relied on the principle of nemo debet bis vexari and contended that the petitioner was not at fault for the criminal proceedings. He further submitted that two co-accused employees, who were regular employees, had been granted salary during suspension, implying discrimination.
For the Respondent/State
The State’s counsel contended that the termination was in accordance with government instructions applicable to contractual staff. The termination order was upheld by this Court on merits in W.P. No. 13519/2021, making it final. The petitioner never challenged the termination order until after the FIR was quashed. No legal principle obligates payment of salary for non-performance, especially when the absence resulted from the employee’s own conduct.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the petitioner’s employment and the legal consequences of termination during criminal proceedings. It emphasized that contractual employment is not equivalent to regular service and is governed by the terms of engagement and applicable government instructions.
"The petitioner got involved in criminal case because of his own acts. Respondents are not instrumental in his prosecution. Therefore, since the petitioner has not worked for the period in question, the respondents are justified in denying him the benefit of salary."
The Court noted that the termination order dated 06.07.2021 was not only lawful but had already been upheld on merits by this Court in a prior writ petition. The quashing of the FIR, while legally significant, does not retroactively invalidate a lawful termination that was independently adjudicated and confirmed. The Court further held that the petitioner’s failure to challenge the termination order until after the FIR was quashed indicated acquiescence.
Regarding the claim of discrimination, the Court observed that the petitioner had not pleaded the existence of similarly situated employees in his writ petition, and no evidence was placed on record. Moreover, the co-accused referred to were regular employees who were suspended, not terminated, and thus the comparison was legally inapposite.
The Court concluded that the principle of quantum meruit or payment for services rendered does not apply where no services were performed, and no legal duty to pay arises merely because a criminal accusation was later found to be baseless.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to salary for the period from 07.07.2021 to 07.01.2025. No monetary relief, interest, or costs were awarded. The termination order dated 06.07.2021 was upheld as lawful and final.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Contractual Service Does Not Entitle to Back Wages After Termination
- Practitioners must advise that contractual employees have no automatic right to back wages even if criminal proceedings are quashed, provided termination was lawful and upheld by a court
- The burden lies on the employee to challenge termination promptly; delay may be construed as acceptance
- Government instructions on termination during criminal proceedings remain binding unless expressly invalidated
Quashing of FIR Does Not Automatically Restore Employment Benefits
- Quashing of an FIR is a procedural remedy; it does not nullify prior lawful administrative actions
- Courts will not grant retrospective benefits unless there is a clear legal mandate or violation of natural justice
- Employers are not liable for salary during periods of absence caused by the employee’s own criminal conduct, regardless of eventual acquittal
Discrimination Claims Require Specific Pleading and Evidence
- Allegations of unequal treatment must be specifically pleaded and substantiated with documentary or testimonial evidence
- Comparisons between contractual and regular employees are legally invalid unless the roles, terms, and conditions are identical
- Courts will not entertain speculative claims of discrimination without a factual foundation on record
