Holding

Back‑wages cannot be awarded without a reinstatement order, and the respondents, having not contested their termination or the policy, are not entitled to the reliefs claimed.

Summary

The respondents, former Adult Education Supervisors, were terminated when the Non‑Formal Education Scheme was abolished on 1 April 2001 and later re‑appointed in 2007 under a fresh appointment that recognised only pension benefits for prior service. They filed a writ petition in 2013 seeking back‑wages for the period 1 Oct 2001 to 3 July 2007 and continuity of past service, relying on a prior decision in Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra. The Supreme Court held that the respondents never challenged their termination or the 2005 policy and the 2007 appointment expressly limited past service to pension calculations, so no reinstatement order existed and back‑wages could not be awarded. The Court also noted the petition suffered from laches. Consequently, the High Court’s order granting back‑wages was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

The respondents’ entitlement to back‑wages for the period 2001‑2007 without a reinstatement order.
Whether the respondents’ failure to challenge their termination and the 2005 policy bars the relief.
The effect of laches on the writ petition filed in 2013.
The applicability of the principle ‘no work, no pay’ to the claim for back‑wages.

Subjects

service lawback wageslachesreinstatementadult education supervisornon‑formal education schemepensionno work no payadministrative law

Judgment

[2018] 14 S.C.R. 45 45

THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. A
v.
BALIRAM SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 10806 of 2018)
OCTOBER 29, 2018 B
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.]
Service Law – Back Wages – Respondents appointed as Adult
Education Supervisors – Posts of Adult Education Supervisor
abolished – Challenge to – Appellants appointed the respondents
C
in the Non-Formal Education Scheme – Said scheme abolished w.e.f.
1st April, 2001 – Respondents terminated – Policy decision by State
Government on 20th May, 2005 to adjust all the retrenched employees
– Respondents appointed pursuant to the letter dated 16th March,
2007 – Writ petition filed by respondents for direction against the
appellants to make payment of salary to them for the period from D
1st October, 2001 till 3rd July, 2007 and also to give continuity of
past services to the respondents taking into account the same period
– Writ petition allowed – On appeal, held: Respondents neither
challenged the termination order after closure of the Non-Formal
Education Scheme w.e.f. 1st April, 2001 nor the policy dated 20th
E
May, 2005 under which they were appointed or the appointment
letter dated 16th March, 2007 – They chose to file the subject writ
petition only in 2013 and thus, it suffers from laches – Even the
appointment letter dtd. 16th March, 2007 stated that the appointment
was a fresh appointment and the past services would be reckoned
only for the purpose of grant of pension and nothing more – F
Respondents acted upon such terms and conditions of appointment
without any demurrer – Unless the respondents are reinstated in
their previous post (held prior to 1st April, 2001), the question of
awarding back-wages would not arise at all – Relief of back-wages
is and can be linked only to the order of reinstatement – It cannot
G
be awarded in isolation or during the period when the respondents
were not in employment at all – Respondents not entitled to the reliefs
as claimed.

H
45
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The respondents neither challenged the
termination order after closure of the Non-Formal Education
Scheme w.e.f. 1st April, 2001 nor the policy dated 20th May, 2005
under which they have been appointed or the appointment letter
B dated 16th March, 2007. Even the appointment letter dated 16th
March, 2007 unambiguously predicates that the appointment was
a fresh appointment and the past services would be reckoned
only for the purpose of grant of pension and nothing more. The
respondents acted upon such terms and conditions of
appointment without any demurrer. Unless the respondents are
C to be reinstated in their previous post (held prior to 1 st April,
2001), the question of awarding back-wages would not arise at
all. The relief of back-wages is and can be linked only to the
order of reinstatement. It cannot be awarded in isolation or during
the period when the respondents were not in employment at all.
D [Para 18][64-A-D]
1.2 A fortiori, the writ petition filed by the respondents was
devoid of merits for more than one reason. First, it suffers from
laches since it came to be filed only in the year 2013. Second,
there is no challenge to the termination w.e.f. 1st April, 2001 and
E including the policy dated 20th May, 2005, or to the terms and
conditions of appointment letter dated 16th March, 2007. No order
of reinstatement could be passed in favour of the respondents
and sans such an order, the respondents cannot be bestowed with
back-wages for the period during which they were not in the
employment of the appellants and also because they did not work
F during that period. Third, the scheme in respect of which the
respondents were employed on temporary basis was closed w.e.f.
1st April, 2001. No order of reinstatement could be made much
less of back-wages for the period subsequent thereto and until
the engagement of the respondents on 16th March, 2007 in a new
G post. If the scheme in which they were employed has been
abolished, by no stretch of imagination can the court direct
payment of back-wages for the period after abolition of the
scheme w.e.f. 1st April, 2001. Fourth, the principle of ‘no work,
no pay’ would disentitle the respondents from the relief of back-
wages. Fifth, the decision in Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra case, is
H distinguishable on facts and, in any case, a relief wrongly granted
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. v. BALIRAM SINGH & ORS. 47

to the petitioner therein cannot be the basis to grant similar relief A
to the respondents herein, which is not in conformity with the
extant regulations or policy, the dismissal of Special Leave Petition
of the State by this Court in that case notwithstanding. Lastly, the
principle underlying the decision of Supreme Court in Arun Kumar
case, would apply proprio vigore to the case of the respondents.
B
[Para 19][64-D-H; 65-A]
1.3 The respondents are not entitled to the reliefs as
claimed, having acted upon the terms and conditions upon
which they came to be engaged vide appointment letter
dated 16 th March, 2007. The impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside. C
[Paras 21, 22][67-A-B]
Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra v. State of Bihar and Ors.
decided on 29th August, 2005 in CWJC No.1712/
2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna
– distinguished. D

Ashwani Kumar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Others
(1997) 2 SCC 1 : [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 120 ; The
Bihar State Adult and Non-Formal Education
Employees Association and Ors. v. The State of Bihar
and Ors. 1996 SCC Online Pat 235 ; (1996) 2 PLJR E
394 ; State of Bihar and Ors. v. Arun Kumar decided
on 29th August, 2005 in CWJC No.1712/2002 passed
by the High Court of Judicature at Patna;
Binod Kumar Verma case, decided on 14th February,
2005 in CWJC No. 15365 of 2001 passed by the High F
Court of Judicature at Patna ; Krishnandan Singh
case, decided on 23rd May, 2003 in CWJC No.12469
of 2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Patna ; Amar Nath Prasad Karn case, decided on 10th
July, 2017 in CWJC No.18490 of 2008 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Patna ; Yogi Kamti & Sunil G
Kumar case, decided on 11th July, 2017 in CWJC No.
18960 of 2008 and 18993 of 2008 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Patna ; Asgar Ali case, decided
on 4th January, 2010 in WPS No.729 of 2004 by the
High Court of Jharkhand – referred to. H
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A Case Law Reference
[1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 120 referred to Para 20
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10806
of 2018.
B From the Judgment and Order dated 15.01.2018 of the High
Court of Judicature at Patna in LPA No. 2307 of 2016.
Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., M. Shoeb Alam, Ujjwal Singh,
Mojahid Karim Khan, Advs. for the Appellants.
Navaniti Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv., Devash Bharuka, Justin,
C Vaibhav Niti, Devashish Bharuka, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 15th
D January, 2018 in L.P.A. No.2307 of 2016 passed by the Division Bench
of the High Court of Judicature at Patna whereby the judgment and
order passed by the Single Judge in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22208
of 2013 dated 22nd August, 2016 allowing the writ petition preferred by
the respondents inter alia for relief of payment of salary for the period
from 1st October, 2001 till 3rd July, 2007 and consequently directing the
E appellants to pay the amount towards salary for the said period had been
upheld.
3. The respondents filed a writ petition initially praying for a
direction against the appellants to make payment of salary to them for
the period from 1st October, 2001 till 3rd July, 2007, along with statutory
F interest. By way of an amendment, a further relief was claimed to issue
a writ of mandamus to the appellants to give continuity of past services
to the respondents taking into account the period from 1st October, 2001
till 3rd July, 2007 for the purpose of making payment of salary to the
respondents for the said period. The respondents asserted that they were
G appointed as Adult Education Supervisors between 1981 and 1987
pursuant to advertisements published between 1979 and 1983. It is stated
that 771 posts of Adult Education Supervisor were abolished in terms of
the decision of the State Government after adjusting the remaining 367
supervisors who continued to work until the abolition of the posts in the
year 1991.
H
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. v. BALIRAM SINGH & ORS. 49
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

4. These termination orders were challenged by the association A
of the respondents, namely, the Bihar State Adult and Non-Formal
Education Employees Association, by way of CWJC No.5036 of 1992.
That writ petition was disposed of along with connected cases vide
judgment dated 24 th May, 1996 1. Paragraph Nos.36 and 37 of the
judgment read thus:
B
“36. There is no doubt that petitioners’ initial appointments were
made to a scheme which was purely temporary, therefore, it may
not be possible for me to ask the respondent authorities to regularize
their services. But I have already noticed that their appointments
were made as per the prescribed norms of the Government after
proper advertisement etc. I have also noticed that having regard C
to their past services rendered continuously for ten to fourteen
years, the State authorities had themselves absorbed at least 771
of such Supervisors and for rest steps were under contemplation.
Petitioners have also been able to establish successfully that the
decision of the authorities to cancel such adjustment was not only D
malafide rather shameful. But now a stand is being taken by the
respondents that those 771 posts were also temporary hence a
decision was taken to terminate the petitioners. Therefore, in these
backgrounds, it would not be proper to quash the order of
petitioners’ termination.
E
37. But it cannot be ignored that having regard to the long services
rendered by the petitioners, administrative authorities had suggested
steps for their absorption even in other departments. Therefore,
having taken into consideration entire facts and circumstances of
the case, I dispose of the writ petitions with the following direction
to the respondent-authorities: (a) to allow the petitioners and F
interveners to continue against these 771 posts, against which
they were adjusted in terms of the letter of the concerned
department, dated 19th December, 1990. But such adjustment is
to be made as per their seniority or (b) in case those posts have
also been abolished, take steps to absorb/adjust the petitioners G
along with the interveners in a similar manner, the employees of
Consolidation Department were adjusted or (c) if for any justified
reason condition nos. (a) or (b) are not possible, take a decision
1
The Bihar State Adult and Non-Formal Education Employees Association and Ors.
Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. 1996 SCC Online Pat 235;(1996) 2 PLJR 394 H
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A similar to the State of Uttar Pradesh, which I have already indicated
in paragraph no.18 of this order and adjust/absorb them
accordingly. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, I
could not persuade myself to quash the impugned order. With the
aforesaid directions/observations, these writ applications are, thus,
disposed of. But the parties are left to bear their own costs.”
B
5. Consequent to the said decision, the appellants appointed the
respondents in the Non-Formal Education Scheme/Adult Education
Scheme vide order dated 15th March, 1998. The said order reads thus:
“The Government of Bihar
C Secondary, Primary and Adult Education Department
Office Order
Patna, date: 15th March, 98
No.24/Mu. 5-042/92 P.E. 112/C.W.J.C.-5036/92
1. In the light of order passed on the date of 24.5.96 by the Hon’ble
D Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.-5036/92 and other annexed
petitions and in the light of order passed on the date of 26.11.97 in
M.J.C. No.-2884/96 and 3172/96, against the sanctioned and vacant
posts of the Project Officers, under Informal Dist. Public Education
Program under Public Education Directorate, to the following
E service relieved Adult Education Supervisors along with the other
allowances payable from time to time by the Government, in pay-
scale-1600-50-2300-60-2700, making appointment in temporary
way on the post of Project Officer under Informal Education,
order is passed to make joining in Public Education Directorate,
Bihar Patna.
F
S.N. Name Amended/Pro Home District Dist. From where
visional retrenchment was
made
1. Mrs. Kalyani Devi 1 Bhagalpur Pakud
2. 2
G 3. 3
4.
5.
453 Mr. Panna Lal 500 W. Singhbhum W. Singhbhum
Yadav

H
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. v. BALIRAM SINGH & ORS. 51
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

2. Aforesaid all appointed employees at the time of joining, shall A
submit necessarily Medical Certificate issued by Civil Surgeon.
3. This appointment shall be deemed fresh appointment,
resultantly their earlier services shall not be calculated for
their pension,/ promotion/ time bound promotion etc.
4. If by the aforesaid employees, their earlier charges are not B
handed over, then only after handing over earlier charge, joining
shall be made at new posted place.
5. To all aforesaid employees only starting salary of pay-
scale mentioned in this letter shall be payable immediately.
C
6. The service of all aforesaid employees shall be under policy
and principle of Informal Education Program/Adult Education
Program.
7. The service conditions of aforesaid all appointed
employees shall be deemed under circulars issued earlier D
in the context of retrenchment and adjustment by the
Personnel Department and Finance Department.
8. On being any kind of alteration in Sl. No. in amended Provisional
Seniority List prepared by Public Education Directorate, Bihar,
Patna, alteration may be made in the post of employees mentioned
E
in this letter also.
9. If during review by Public Education Directorate, proof is found
of arrear or defalcation against any aforesaid employee, then
action shall be taken for its recovery. If against any employee
serious charges are found or their service is found unsatisfactory,
F
then their service may be terminated.
10. The aforesaid appointed employees shall submit affidavit in
the context of their appointment at the time of joining stating therein
that, their appointment is made in formal way and as per rule and
if in future their appointment is found illegal/irregular, then their
service shall be terminated and they shall be liable to punishment. G

11. The employee who was appointed on the post of Project
Officer, under informal education for the period of three
years on the basis of contract earlier in category of Adult

H
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A Education Supervisor and whose service was extended up
to December, 97, his appointment also shall be deemed
fresh appointment.
12. Aforesaid all appointed employees shall make joining in
Public Education Directorate, Bihar, Patna within one month
B from date of issuance of this letter, otherwise their
appointment shall be terminated.
Sd./-dated 15-3-98
[Vishnu Kumar]
Director, Public Education, Bihar, Patna
C Memo no.-412/Patna, Date: 15 March 1998
Copy sent to;-Accountant General, Bihar, Patna/Ranchi for
information and necessary action.
Sd./-dated 15-3-98
[Vishnu Kumar]
Director, Public Education, Bihar, Patna
D
Memo no.-412/Patna, Date: 15 March 1998
Copy sent to:- The Treasury Officer, Vikas Bhawan, Patna
Secretariat for information and necessary action.
Sd./-dated 15-3-98
[Vishnu Kumar]
E
Director, Public Education, Bihar, Patna
Memo no.-412/Patna, Date: 15 March 1998
Copy sent to:- All Dist. Magistrates/all Dy. Development
Commissioner/all Dist. Public Education Officer/all Assistant
Driector, Informal Education for information and necessary action.
F Sd./-dated 15-3-98
[Vishnu Kumar]
Director, Public Education, Bihar, Patna
Memo no.-412/Patna, Date: 15 March 1998
Copy sent to:- All concerned
G employees……………………………………..for information
and necessary action.
Sd./-dated 15-3-98
[Vishnu Kumar]
Director, Public Education, Bihar, Patna
H
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. v. BALIRAM SINGH & ORS. 53
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

Memo no.-412/Patna, Date: 15 March 1998 A
Copy sent to:- The Secretary, Secondary, Primary and Adult
Education Department, Bihar, Patna for information and necessary
action.
Sd./-dated 15-3-98
[Vishnu Kumar] B
Director, Public Education, Bihar, Patna
Memo no.-412/Patna, Date: 15 March 1998
[True Translated Copy]”
(emphasis supplied)
6. Be it noted that the appointment of the respondents to the post C
of Project Officer was a fresh appointment. The respondents accepted
the said terms and conditions of appointment and none of the respondents
challenged the same. The scheme, in respect of which the respondents
were appointed, was abolished w.e.f. 1st April, 2001, as a result of which
all of them came to be terminated. The respondents, however, neither
challenged the policy decision to abolish the scheme under which the D
Informal Education Programme Scheme was implemented by the State
Government nor their termination order. Indeed, some of the affected
persons challenged their order of termination by way of writ petitions.
We shall advert to this aspect a little latter.
7. It is indisputable that the State Government took a policy decision E
th
on 20 May, 2005 to adjust all the 1427 retrenched employees. The
policy is reflected in the resolution, which reads thus:
“State of Bihar
Department of Human Resources Development
(Primary and Adult Education) F
Resolution
Patna Dated:- May, 2005.

Like other states in State of Bihar, Informal Education Program
in the form of Central sponsored programe was managed in order
to arrange primary education to such children who are aged about G
6-14 years and not going to government school for study. Central
Government and State Government were bearing the expenses
incurred in this programe in specified ratio. The Central
Government has taken decision to stop Informal Education
Programe and to regulate the Education Guarantee Program/ H
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A Objective and Navachari Education Programe with effect from
01.04.2001 for the purpose of this object. Subsequently the
following employees for informal Education Program were
retrenched with effect from 01.04.2001.
S. Post Name Req. Salary No. Reentrant
B No. qualification Emp.

1. Project Officer Graduation 5,000-8,000 316
2. Clerk Cum Accnt. Matric 4,000-6,000 346
3. Clerk Cum Typist Matric 4,000-6,000 346
4. Stenographer Matric 4,000-6,000 1
C 5. Driver Literate 3,050-4,590 30
6. Peon Literate 2,550-3,200 370
Total 1,427

2. The matter of a adjustment of 1427 retrenched employees under
D the aforesaid explained in formal education programe was pending
before the government. State government has taken decision for
adjustment of the retrenched employees against the available
vacancies in different departments in the following manners:-
J. The concerned retrenched employee shall be adjusted on
E such post for which he possesses the required prescribed
educational qualification and no new post shall be created for
him.
B. They shall be adjusted for the same salary at which they
were retrenched. In case of unavailability of post/vacancy and
upon furnishing their written consent, retrenched employees
F
shall also be adjusted at minimum salary.
C. The reservation roster shall, necessarily be complied with.
The retrenched employees shall be adjusted against the roster
point of the same class, they belong to.
G D. The maximum limit of age shall be exhausted for adjustment.
E. In the light recommendation of personnel and administrative
reforms department, as per the definition of retrenched
employees mentioned in their resolution no.-209 dated 06.07.92,
Public Education Director shall prepare, self sufficient panel,
H
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. v. BALIRAM SINGH & ORS. 55
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

in the light of advice of learned counsel, all 1,427 employees A
have been deemed to be retrenched.
F. The direct recruitment shall not be-stopped in series of
adjustment in different departments. The Public Education
Director shall initiate proceedings to mark the post for the
purpose of adjustment in different departments. B
G. Consent of Bihar Employees Selection Commission is not
necessary in filing the marked post through adjustment.
H. According to availability of vacancies, the appointments
shall be made from such panel time to time through adjustment
after obtaining the approval of chief secretary. Chief Secretary C
must be empowered by the governor or Council of Ministers
of State for giving such approval.
I. The adjustment of retrenched employees shall be
deemed to be a new appointment. They shall not get the
benefit of seniority on the basis of their service before D
being retrenched. But the period of service prior to
retrenchment shall be used for pension purpose.
J. The retrenched employees whose immediate adjustment is
not done due to unavailability of vacancy, after preparing their
list they shall be adjusted against vacancy post available in E
next five years.
By the order of Governor of Bihar.
SD/illegible-Vijay Prakash
Secretary
Primary and Adult Education F
20/5/2005"
(emphasis supplied)
8. Even this policy makes it amply clear that the adjustment of
retrenched employees was to be a new appointment and the employees
would not get the benefit of seniority on the basis of their services before G
being retrenched. However, the period of service prior to retrenchment
would be reckoned for pension purposes only. Even this policy has not
been challenged by the respondents.
9. The respondents eventually came to be appointed pursuant to
the letter dated 16th March, 2007. The said letter reads thus: H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A “Letter no.-13/Est. 15-05/06 270/
The Government of Bihar
Human Resource Development Department
From,
Dr. Madan Mohan Jha
B Commissioner-cum-Secretary.
To,
Commissioner-cum-Secretary,
Food and Supply Department,
Bihar, Patna.
C Patna, Date: 16 March, 2007
Subject:- About the adjustment on the posts equivalent of
Supervisors of Adult Public Education, in the compliance
of order passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in
C.W.J.C. No.-5036/92 and M.J.C. No.-2884/96, in
course of Resolution No.-582 dated 20.05.05 and 1638
D
dated 11.10.06 passed by the State Government.
Sir,
1. In the context of aforesaid subjects, as per instruction, it is to
say that, a decision is taken by the State Government of re-
adjustment against the vacant posts equivalent to supervisory
E category under different departments, of the employees of
concerned Adult Education Supervisor Category, in context of
which decision was taken of adjustment in other departments as
consequence of conclusion of Informal Education Program with
effect from date 01.04.01 and whose adjustment was made in
F year 1998 under Informal Education Program on account of wants
of posts, for some time against the post of clerk, the employees of
Adult Education Supervisor Category, concerned with Resolution
No.-582 dated 20.05.05 for the adjustment against the vacancies
available in different Departments/Offices, of retrenched
employees of Informal Education Program. In this context, the
G copy of Resolution No.-582 dated 20.05.05 and Resolution No.-
1638 dated 11.10.06 are annexed.
Vide Letter No.-646 dated 25.03.05 of the Food and
Supply Department, on the basis of said decision of the Government
and option received for adjustment from employees against the
H
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. v. BALIRAM SINGH & ORS. 57
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

communicated rest vacancies of Supply Inspector, for the A
appointment/adjustment in pay-scale [5000-8000] against vacant
posts of Supply Inspector, under Food and Supply Department, of
the following retrenched employees of Adult Education Supervisory
Category:-
S. Name Reservation D.O.B. Home Date of First Presently in which office
No. Category Dist. joining on the department adjusted or to B
post of Adult be adjusted
Education
Supervisor
1. Swarn Lata S.T. 25.06.58 Kodrama 01.03.82 Clerk in the Office of
Fransis D.S.I. Samastipur
2. Dinesh S.T. 02.04.56 Giridih 05.03.82 R.D.E.D. Darbhanga
Chandra
Manjhi C
3. Rasique S.T. 03.01.57 Dumka 13.04.82 R.D.E.D. Darbhanga
Murm
4. Munshi S.T. 03.01.57 Dumka 14.04.82 R.D.E.D. Darbhanga
Murmu
5. Thiyophil S.T. 12.08.49 Dumka 15.04.82 Clerk in the Office of S.
Tuddu Madhubani
6. Timothy S.T. 19.04.55 Dumka 27.01.83 Clerk in the P.T.E.C.
Marandi Ghoghradih Madhubani D
7. Jagnath S.T. 16.01.58 Ranchi 01.09.84 R.D.E.D. Darbhanga
Singh
8. Kumari Usha W.B.C.-1 05.06.56 Patna 21.05.80 W. Supervisor C.D.P.
Kiran Badhara Bhjojpur
9. Bhagwan B.C.-1 16.07.49 Dumka 15.06.81 Office of Dist.
Osta Magistrate, Katihar
10. Radha Prasad B.C.-1 30.07.51 Palamu 15.01.82 Dis. Magistrate Purnia
Verma E
11. Devendra B.C.-1 09.03.54 Bhojpur 06.08.82 Recommended in
Thakur Welfare Department
12. Muneshwar B.C.-1 25.09.52 Gaya 06.08.82 Clerk in Sub Divisional
Prasad Office Masaodi
13. Moise Ansari B.C.-1 05.02.57 E. Champaran 06.08.82 Dist. Magistrate
Gopalganj
14. Ramayan B.C.-1 03.12.55 W. 07.08.82 Dist. Magistrate W.
Choudhary Champaran Champaran F
15. Arjun Mahto B.C.-2 24.01.58 Palamu 15.01.82 Welfare Department
16. Arvind B.C.-2 02.01.59 Ranchi 15.01.82 Recommended on the
Kumar post of accountant
welfare department
17. Krishna B.C.-2 30.08.56 Vaishali 27.02.82 Welfare Department
Kumari
18. Raj Kishore B.C.-2 09.08.59 Hazaribagh 01.03.82 Recommended on the
post of clerk in Youth G
sports art & cultural
depart.
19. Manohar B.C.-2 18.07.55 Giridih 03.03.82 Clerk in 04 Bihar
Ram Madani Batalian N.C.C.
Bhagalpur
20. Gangadhar B.C.-2 10.09.58 Dhanbad 05.03.82 Clerk in Office of 23
Mandal Bihar Batalian N.C.C.
Bhagalpur H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A 21. Abdula
Kasmi
B.C.-2 11.04.55 Ranchi 22.03.82 Recommended on the
post of accountant in
welfare department

22. Sudhir B.C.-2 31.12.48 Bhagalpur 13.04.82 Recommended on the
Kumar Gupta post of clerk in Youth
Sports Art & Culture
Depart.
B
23. Om Prakash B.C.-2 24.05.54 Deoghar 14.04.82 Recommended on the
Mandal post of clerk in Youth
Sports Art & Culture
Depart.
24. Ganesh B.C.-2 02.01.52 Deoghar 20.04.82 Recommended on the
Prasad Umar post of clerk in Youth
Sports Art & Culture
Depart.
C 25. Suraj Prasad B.C.-2 22.06.48 E. Champaran 06.08.82 D.M. W. Champaran
26. Sudha Rani B.C.-2 01.08.52 E. Champaran 06.08.82 Recommended on the
Jaiswal post of clerk in Youth
Sports Art & Culture
Depart.
27. Krishna B.C.-2 08.06.53 Gopalganj 06.08.82 Recommended in
Kumar Welfare Department
Prasad
28. Narendra B.C.-2 28.01.56 Nalanda 06.08.82 Recommended in
D Dev Welfare Department
29. Dasrath B.C.-2 15.10.57 Palamu 26.12.82 Recommended on the
Singh Yadav post of clerk in welfare
department
30. Kamal B.C.-2 02.03.61 Godda 27.01.83 Welfare department
Kumar
Jaisawal
31. Rama Mahto B.C.-2 07.07.50 Palamu 01.05.83 Welfare department
32. Dilip Kumar B.C.-2 11.04.58 E. Singhbhum 24.08.84 Recommended in
Maiti Welfare Department
E 33. Shoukat Ara B.C.-2 16.03.48 Purnia 02.02.85 Recommended in
Welfare Department
34. Naresh Kr. B.C.-2 05.01.58 Saharsa 18.04.85 Recommended in
Jaiswal Welfare Department
35. Mira Kumara General 19.07.50 Purnia 05.02.80 Child Development
Office, Purnia
36. Dineshwar General 17.08.54 E. Champaran 11.06.81 D.M. Office Purnia
Pathak
37. Krishna General 01.08.55 Palamu 15.01.82 Youth sports, art &
F Kumar culture depart.
38. Sharmasiptan General 01.01.54 Dhanbad 27.02.82 I.C.D.S. Social Welfare
su Konar Department, Bihar
39. Vinod Kumar General 28.06.53 Dhanbad 01.03.82 I.C.D.S. Social Welfare
Department, Bihar
40. Anand S ingh General 05.02.58 Dhanbad 08.03.82 I.C.D.S. Social Welfare
Choudhary Department, Bihar
41. Satish Kumar General 15.11.55 Dhanbad 13.04.82 I.C.D.S. Social Welfare
Sinha Department, Bihar
G 42. Ajijur General 02.06.50 Dumka 19.04.82 D.E.O. Office Munger
Rahman
43. Nand General 01.06.50 Dumka 20.04.82 Welfare Department
Kishore
Mishra
44. Vimla Devi General 05.06.55 Gaya 06.08.82 Collectariate Patna
45. Baliram General 13.10.55 Gopalganj 06.08.82 Recommended in
Singh Gopalganj Collectariate
46. Radha Krisna General 01.05.57 Gopalganj 06.08.82 Gopalganj Collectariate
H Mishra
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. v. BALIRAM SINGH & ORS. 59
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

1. In the adjustment, compliance of Reservation roster shall be A
mandatory. Retrenched employee shall be adjusted/appointed
against roster point of same category of reservation to which they
belong.
2. Their adjustment shall be deemed new appointment and
on the basis of their service prior to retrenchment benefit B
of seniority shall not be permissible to them but their
service prior to retrenchment shall be calculated for the
purpose of pension.
3. All employees were under the control of Dist. Public Education
Officer/Public Education directorate. So Joining of all employees C
should be accepted at their new place only after receiving No
Objection Certificate issued by Dist. Public Education Officer/
Public Education Directorate. The employees who have made
joining in any other department earlier as result of adjustment,
such employees shall produce No Objection Certificate issued
from concerned Office. D

4. After the appointment of aforesaid employees, copy of
appointment letter send immediately to the under signatory, so
that, information should be sent to the Hon’ble High Court.
5. On finding any kind of discrepancy, inform immediately, so that, E
it may be resolved immediately.
Sincerely
Sd./-dated 16/03/07
[Dr. Madan Mohan Jha]
Commissioner & Secretary F
Memo No.270, Patna Date: 16 March, 2007"
(emphasis supplied)
10. This appointment letter reiterated the position that the
appointment/adjustment of the respondents was to be a new appointment
and, on the basis of their service prior to retrenchment, benefit of seniority
G
would not be permissible to them but it would be reckoned only for the
purpose of pension. The respondents acted upon the said conditions and
did not challenge the same. The writ petition, however, came to be filed
only in 2013, being CWJC No.22208 of 2013, for the following reliefs:

H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A “i) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of
Mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of
salary to the petitioners of the period 1.10.2001 to 3.7.2007 with
statutory interest.
ii) To any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found to
B be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
The respondents sought further relief by way of an amendment, which
reads thus:
“1.(iii). To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature
of mandamus commanding the Respondents to give continuity of
C past services of the Petitioners taking into account the period 2001-
2007, for the purpose of making payment of salary to the Petitioners
of the said period.”
11. The sole basis to buttress the relief as claimed was that in the
case of Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.2 similar
D reliefs had been granted and the respondents were similarly placed. The
writ petition filed by the respondents was resisted by the appellants by
inter alia placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of
State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Arun Kumar3. According to the appellants,
no relief could be granted to the respondents as they were appointed as
per the policy articulated in communication dated 20th May, 2005 and
E including the terms and conditions of appointment noted in the
communication dated 16th March, 2007. Inasmuch as, the respondents
acted upon the terms and conditions of fresh appointment without any
demurrer. Further, the case of the respondents was not similar to the
factual matrix involved in the case of Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra (supra).
F In any case, no relief can be granted in the fact situation of the present
case by invoking Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India.
12. Even though the learned Single Judge of the High Court noted
the argument of the appellants that, in a similar case of Arun Kumar
(supra), this Court had refused to grant relief of back-wages, but
G nevertheless proceeded to answer the matters in issue by holding that
the appellants could not point out the factual difference between the
case of Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra (supra) and that of the respondents.
Further, the decision in Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra (supra) had been
2
Decided on 29th August, 2005 in CWJC No. 1712/2002 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Patna.
3
H Decided on March 2, 2016 in Civil Appeal No. 2433 of 2016 and connected appeals.
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. v. BALIRAM SINGH & ORS. 61
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

affirmed right up to this Court by dismissal of the Special Leave Petition A
being SLP (Civil) No.18429 of 2009 on 24th July, 2009. On that basis
alone, the writ petition came to be allowed. Thus, the reliefs claimed in
the writ petition were granted to the respondents by directing the
appellants to pay salary for the period from 1st October, 2001 till 3rd July,
2007.
B
13. The appellants, therefore, carried the matter in appeal by way
of Letters Patent Appeal No.2307 of 2016 before the Division Bench of
the High Court. The Division Bench also disposed of the appeal vide
impugned judgment and order dated 15th January, 2018, which reads
thus:
C
“Heard counsel for the State, the appellants, as well as the private
respondents.
Since the learned single Judge allowed the writ application, gave
a direction for payment of salary for the period 01.10.2001 to
03.07.2007 in conformity with a similar decision passed in the D
case of Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra, which order in turn even upheld
by the Division Bench as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In
the interest of maintaining consistency in identical situation, the
learned single Judge has committed no error in allowing the writ
application and granted direction for payment for the period
indicated above. E

We do not find any infirmity in the order. The appeal is dismissed.”
14. The appellants would contend that the sole basis on which the
High Court granted reliefs to the respondents is tenuous. For, the factual
matrix involved in the case of Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra (supra), is F
inapplicable to the case of the respondents and moreso, unlike in the
case of Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra (supra), the respondents not only
failed to challenge the termination order passed against them consequent
to abolition of the scheme w.e.f. 1st April, 2001 but also failed to challenge
both, the policy of the State articulated in communication dated 20th
May, 2005 and the terms and conditions of the letter of appointment G
dated 16th March, 2007. Having failed to do so, the respondents were
not entitled to any relief whatsoever. Besides, the cause of action first
arose in 2001, then in May 2005 and again, in March 2007, but the writ
petition seeking relief of back-wages for the stated period came to be
filed by the respondents, without challenging the termination order or the
H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A policy, for the first time in the year 2013. In other words, the writ petition
filed by the respondents also suffered from laches. It is then contended
that in the case of Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra (supra), the High Court
directed reinstatement and, as a consequential relief, ordered payment
of back-wages, after setting aside the termination order. In the present
case, there is no challenge against the termination order or the terms
B
and conditions specified in the appointment letter dated 16th March, 2007,
being fresh appointment of the respondents. If it is not a case of
reinstatement, the question of granting back-wages for the stated period
would not arise. Moreover, since the respondents had not worked during
the relevant period at all, the principle of ‘no work, no pay’ would
C inevitably come into play.
15. The respondents, on the other hand, would contend that the
High Court, while granting relief to the respondents, has placed reliance
on the dictum in the judgment rendered in Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra
(supra). That judgment has been upheld by this Court by dismissal of
D Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18429 of 2009 on 24th July, 2009.
Further, the High Court while deciding the case of Smt. Ram Laxmi
Mishra (supra) had adverted to the decision of the same High Court in
the case of Binod Kumar Verma4, which decision has also been affirmed
by this Court by dismissal of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11560 of
2005 on 16th December, 2005. Reliance has also been placed on the
E decision of the same High Court in Krishnandan Singh5 and also on
the decisions rendered in Amar Nath Prasad Karn6, Yogi Kamti &
Sunil Kumar7 and Asgar Ali8. The decision in Asgar Ali has been
affirmed by this Court by dismissal of Special Leave Petition (C) CC
Nos.10361-10364 of 2014 on 18th July, 2014. Further, the decision of the
F High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LPA No.359/2009 dated 10th
October, 2009 came to be affirmed by dismissal of SLP (C) No.1377 of
2011 on 2nd August, 2013. As regards the decision of this Court in State
4
Decided on 14th February, 2005 in CWJC No. 15365 of 2001 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Patna.
5
Decided on 23rd May, 2003 in CWJC No. 12469 of 2002 passed by the High Court of
G Judicature at Patna.
6
Decided on 10th July, 2017 in CWJC No. 18490 of 2008 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Patna.
7
Decided on 11th July, 2017 in CWJC No. 18960 of 2008 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Patna.
8
Decided on 4th January, 2010 in WPS No. 729 of 2004 passed by the High Court of
H Jharkhand.
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. v. BALIRAM SINGH & ORS. 63
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Arun Kumar (supra), and connected cases, it is A
submitted that the same is distinguishable. According to the respondents,
the appointment of Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra and other petitioners who
succeeded before the High Court was on the same terms and conditions
consequent to the policy dated 20th May, 2005. The respondents submitted
that no fault could be found with the impugned decision of the High
B
Court for having followed the decision in Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra
(supra), which has been upheld by this Court by dismissal of the concerned
Special Leave Petition. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal be dismissed,
being devoid of merits.
16. We have heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellants and Mr. Navaniti Prasad Singh, learned C
senior counsel appearing for the respondents.
17. The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether the
reliefs as prayed for can be granted to the respondents, who not only
failed to challenge the termination w.e.f. 1st April, 2001 pursuant to the
policy decision of the State Government at the relevant time but also D
failed to challenge the latest policy decision of the State Government
noted in communication dated 20th May, 2005, regarding adjustment of
the terminated employees on terms and conditions stipulated thereunder
and including the terms and conditions specified in the appointment letter
dated 16th March, 2007. Neither the single Judge nor the Division Bench E
of the High Court has dilated on this aspect at all. The learned Single
Judge mechanically followed the decision in Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra
(supra). What has been completely glossed over by the learned Single
Judge as well as the Division Bench in the present case is that the writ
petition filed in Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra (supra), was to challenge the
order of termination dated 1st April, 2001, in which the said petitioner F
succeeded in establishing that her initial appointment was in the Adult
Education Scheme and not in the Non-Formal Education Scheme. What
weighed with the High Court in that case was that the closure of the
Non-Formal Education Scheme in which the concerned petitioner was
working at the relevant time, would not affect her service condition in G
the cadre of Adult Education Scheme. Notably, in Smt. Ram Laxmi
Mishra (supra), the petitioner succeeded in the challenge to her
termination order and it came to be set aside with consequential reliefs
of reinstatement and monetary benefits, which included back-wages for
the relevant period.
H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A 18. In the present case, however, the respondents have neither
challenged the termination order after closure of the Non-Formal
Education Scheme w.e.f. 1st April, 2001 nor the policy dated 20th May,
2005 under which they have been appointed or the appointment letter
dated 16th March, 2007. Even the appointment letter dated 16th March,
2007 unambiguously predicates that the appointment was a fresh
B
appointment and the past services would be reckoned only for the purpose
of grant of pension and nothing more. Indisputably, the respondents acted
upon such terms and conditions of appointment without any demurrer.
They chose to file the subject writ petition only in the year 2013, when
the cause of action first arose on 1st April, 2001, then on 20th May, 2005
C and once again, on 16th March, 2007. Unless the respondents are to be
reinstated in their previous post (held prior to 1st April, 2001), the question
of awarding back-wages would not arise at all. The relief of back-wages
is and can be linked only to the order of reinstatement. It cannot be
awarded in isolation or, for that matter, during the period when the
respondents were not in employment at all.
D
19. A fortiori, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the
writ petition filed by the respondents for the stated reliefs is devoid of
merits for more than one reason. First, it suffers from laches since it
came to be filed only in the year 2013. Second, there is no challenge to
the termination w.e.f. 1st April, 2001 and including the policy dated 20th
E May, 2005, or to the terms and conditions of appointment letter dated
16th March, 2007. No order of reinstatement could be passed in favour
of the respondents and sans such an order, the respondents cannot be
bestowed with back-wages for the period during which they were not in
the employment of the appellants and also because they did not work
F during that period. Third, the scheme in respect of which the respondents
were employed on temporary basis was closed w.e.f. 1st April, 2001. No
order of reinstatement could be made much less of back-wages for the
period subsequent thereto and until the engagement of the respondents
on 16th March, 2007 in a new post. If the scheme in which they were
employed has been abolished, by no stretch of imagination can the court
G direct payment of back-wages for the period after abolition of the scheme
w.e.f. 1st April, 2001. Fourth, the principle of ‘no work, no pay’ would
disentitle the respondents from the relief of back-wages. Fifth, the
decision in Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra (supra), is distinguishable on facts
and, in any case, a relief wrongly granted to the petitioner therein cannot
H be the basis to grant similar relief to the respondents herein, which is not
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. v. BALIRAM SINGH & ORS. 65
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

in conformity with the extant regulations or policy, the dismissal of Special A
Leave Petition of the State by this Court in that case notwithstanding.
Lastly, the principle underlying the decision of this Court in State of
Bihar and Ors. Vs. Arun Kumar (supra), would apply proprio vigore
to the case of the respondents.
20. Counsel for the respondents was at pains to point out that in B
all other cases of similarly placed persons, relief of back-wages for the
relevant period has been granted by the High Court, which has been
upheld right up to this Court by dismissal of Special Leave Petition(s)
filed by the State Government and for that reason, unequal treatment
ought not to be meted out to similarly placed persons. To buttress this
submission, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Ashwani C
Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Others,9 in particular, the
dictum in paragraph 18 thereof. The said paragraph reads thus:
“18. Now is the time for us to take stock of the situation in the
light of our answers to the aforesaid three points. As a logical
corollary to these answers the appeals are liable to be dismissed D
as the decision of the High Court is found to be well sustained.
The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants to
sustain services of these appellants on humanitarian grounds
cannot be countenanced. When 6000 appointees are found to have
been illegally loaded on the State Exchequer by Dr Mallick and E
when there were only 2250 sanctioned posts, in the absence of
clear data as to who were the senior most and which were the
sanctioned posts available at the relevant time against which they
could be fitted, it would be impossible to undertake even a
jettisoning operation to offload the removable load of excess
employees amounting to 3750 by resorting to any judicial surgery. F
Once the source of their recruitment is found to be tainted all of
them have to go by the board. Nor can we say that benefit can
be made available only to 1363 appellants before us as the
other employees similarly circumscribed and who might not
have approached the High Court or this Court earlier and G
who may be waiting in the wings would also be entitled to
claim similar relief against the State which has to give equal
treatment to all of them otherwise it would be held guilty of
discriminatory treatment which could not be countenanced
9
1997 (2) SCC 1 H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India.
Everything, therefore, must start on a clean slate. Reliance placed
by the learned counsel for the appellants on the doctrine of
tempering justice with mercy also cannot be pressed in service on
the peculiar facts of these cases as mercy also has to be based on
justice. The decision of this Court in the case of H.C.
B
Puttaswamy10 also can be of no assistance to the appellants on
the facts of the present cases as in that case the Chief Justice of
the High Court had full financial powers to create any number of
vacancies on the establishment of the High Court as required and
to fill them up. There was no ceiling on his such powers.
C Therefore, the initial entry of the appointees could not be said to
be unauthorised or vitiated or tainted. The fault that was found
was the manner in which after recruitment they were passed on
to the establishments of subordinate courts. That exercise remained
vitiated. But as the original entries in High Court service were not
unauthorised these candidates/employees were permitted to be
D
regularised. Such is not the present case. The initial entry of the
employees is itself unauthorised being not against sanctioned
vacancies nor was Dr Mallick entrusted with the power of creating
vacancies or posts for the schemes under the Tuberculosis
Eradication Programme. Consequently the termination of the
E services of all these appellants cannot be found fault with. Nor
any relief as claimed by them of reinstatement with continued
service can be made available to them.”
(emphasis supplied)
21. For the reasons already recorded, the argument under
F consideration does not commend to us. As mentioned earlier, the factual
position stated in the decisions in which relief has been given to the
petitioners in the concerned petitions is distinguishable. More importantly,
in those petitions, order of termination was the subject matter of the
challenge and, having set aside the impugned termination, the court
G granted consequential relief of reinstatement with back-wages to the
concerned petitioner(s). The respondents herein, however, for reasons
best known to them, did not challenge the order of termination which
event had occurred w.e.f. 1st April, 2001 consequent to abolition of the
scheme in which they were employed. Taking an overall view of the
10
H 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 421
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. v. BALIRAM SINGH & ORS. 67
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

matter, therefore, the respondents are not entitled to the reliefs as claimed, A
having acted upon the terms and conditions upon which they came to be
engaged vide appointment letter dated 16th March, 2007.
22. Accordingly, this appeal must succeed. The impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court on 15th January, 2018 in LPA No.2307
of 2016 is quashed and set aside. The writ petition filed by the B
respondents, being Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22208 of 2013, stands
dismissed. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

Divya Pandey Appeal allowed.

C

D

E

F

G

H