IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

AT JABALPUR

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

<>

&

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

<>

ON THE 25

<>

th

<>

OF FEBRUARY, 2026

<>

WRIT APPEAL No. 583 of 2024

<>

RAJESH PRASAD PANDEY AND OTHERS

<>

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Sanjay Kumar Verma - Advocate for appellant.

Shri Ritwik Parashar - Government Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER

<>

Per

<>

: Justice Pradeep Mittal

<>

The appellant has filed the present writ appeal challenging the order

dated 30.11.2023 passed by Writ Court in Wrti Petition No.7870/2018

whereby the said writ petition has been dismissed holding that since the

petitioners were not appointed in the year 2008 and were subsequently given

appointment only by order dated 13.01.2017 therefore, they are not entitled

for backwages from the date when other candidates were selected and were

appointed.

2. The writ appeal is barred by 4 days, thus I.A. No.3312/2024 has

been filed seeking condonation of delay.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the I.A. No.3312/2024, same is

allowed.

1 WA-583-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16591

4. The delay in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned.

5. The appellants were initially appointed as daily rated employees in

the year 1980 and had rendered more than 20 years of continuous service. In

view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of

Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the State Government

took a one-time decision to regularize/appoint eligible daily wage employees

to the post of Forest Guard. Accordingly, the Chief Conservator of Forest

issued a communication dated 16.09.2008 notifying 1500 vacant posts of

Forest Guard, out of which 1006 posts were to be filled after completing

necessary formalities.

6. The appellants applied pursuant to the said notification and

successfully cleared the written examination, interview and physical test. As

per communication dated 03.11.2008 issued by the Chief Conservator of

Forest, Rewa Circle, out of 262 candidates who appeared, 217 candidates

were declared successful. Though 89 candidates were appointed and 92 posts

were still lying vacant, the appellants, despite being included in the selection

list and directed to submit their testimonials for verification, were not issued

appointment orders. The validity of the selection list was extended by order

dated 28.05.2010.

7. Subsequently, the appellants were issued appointment orders

dated 26.08.2010 and joined duties after being declared physically and

medically fit. However, their appointments were cancelled within a few days

by order dated 09.09.2010 without assigning any reasons.

8. Aggrieved, the appellants filed W.P. No.14609/2010, which was

2 WA-583-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16591

disposed of on 12.07.2011 in terms of the order dated 28.09.2010 passed in

W.P. No.8938/2009(S), wherein this Court held that preparation of a District-

wise merit list was faulty and directed the respondents to prepare a State-

wise merit list and grant appointment to the petitioners in accordance with

their merit. The said order was affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.

No.344/2011 and further challenge by the State before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in SLP No.17125-17126/2012 was dismissed on 05.05.2015. W.A.

No.201/2012 was also dismissed on 19.08.2015, thereby rendering the issue

final.

9. In compliance with the aforesaid judicial directions, the State

Government prepared a State-wise merit list and the appellants were

appointed as Forest Guards on probation by order dated 13.01.2017.

However, juniors and less meritorious candidates had already been appointed

in the year 2008, the appellants were not granted seniority and arrears of pay

from that date.

10. The appellants filed W.P. No.15379/2017, which was disposed

of on 25.10.2017 directing the respondents to decide their representation. By

order dated 26.12.2017, the State Government granted seniority to the

appellants from the date on which less meritorious candidates were

appointed in 2008 but denied arrears of salary for the intervening period.

11. Challenging denial of arrears, the appellants filed W.P.

No.7870/2018. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 30.11.2023,

dismissed the writ petition holding that since petitioners were not appointed

in the year 2008 and were subsequently given appointment only by order

3 WA-583-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16591

dated 13.01.2017, therefore, they are not entitled for backwages from the

date when other candidates were selected and were appointed.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants were

duly selected in the recruitment process initiated pursuant to the notification

dated 16.09.2008 and had successfully cleared all stages of selection. Their

non-appointment in the year 2008 was solely on account of preparation of a

District-wise merit list, which was subsequently held to be faulty by this

Hon’ble Court. The said finding attained finality up to the Hon’ble Supreme

Court, and in compliance thereof, the appellants were appointed on

13.01.2017 after preparation of a State-wise merit list.

13. It is further submitted that pursuant to directions issued in earlier

proceedings, the appellants have been granted seniority from the date on

which their juniors and less meritorious candidates were appointed in the

year 2008. Once retrospective seniority has been granted and the earlier

denial of appointment has been found unsustainable, denial of arrears of

salary for the intervening period amounts to incomplete and improper

compliance of the binding judicial directions. The appellants were always

ready and willing to serve and were prevented from discharging their duties

due to the erroneous action of the respondents.

14. Learned counsel contends that the learned Single Judge erred in

applying the principle of “no work no pay” mechanically, without

appreciating that the appellants were kept out of service for no fault

attributable to them. The action of the respondents in denying monetary

benefits, despite granting retrospective seniority, is arbitrary and violative of

4 WA-583-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16591

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, prayed that

the impugned order be set aside and the appellants be held entitled to arrears

of pay and consequential benefits from the date their juniors were appointed.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

<>

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the undisputed factual

matrix clearly establishes that the appellants were duly selected pursuant to

the recruitment process initiated vide notification dated 16.09.2008 and had

successfully completed all stages of selection in the year 2008 itself. Their

non-appointment at the relevant time was not attributable to any fault or

disqualification on their part, but solely on account of the erroneous

preparation of a District-wise merit list, which was subsequently declared

illegal by this Court and the said finding attained finality up to the Hon’ble

Supreme Court.

16. It is further evident that the respondents, in compliance with

judicial directions, have granted retrospective seniority to the appellants

from the date on which their juniors and less meritorious candidates were

appointed in the year 2008. Once such retrospective seniority has been

granted on the premise that the appellants were wrongfully denied

appointment at the relevant time, denial of arrears of salary for the

intervening period amounts to incomplete and inconsistent implementation of

the binding judicial directions.

17. The principle of “no work no pay” cannot be applied in a

mechanical manner in a case where the employee was ready and willing to

serve but was prevented from doing so due to the illegal action of the

5 WA-583-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16591

employer. The delay in appointment from 2008 till the issuance of the

regular appointment order dated 13.01.2017 is wholly attributable to the

respondents. The appellants were continuing in service since 1980 as daily

rated employees and were given regular appointment in the year 2010 and

they are continued in service as Forest Guard till now, however, their

appointments were cancelled on 09.09.2010, which was held bad in law by

this Court.

18. Moreover, in an identical matter arising out of the same

recruitment process, in W.P. No. 20612/2018 (Nand Kishore Patel & Others

Vs. State of M.P. & others), decided on 16.04.2024, it has been held that

once the cancellation of appointment is declared bad in law, the petitioners

therein are entitled to seniority and the difference of salary from the date of

their initial appointment. Against the said order dated 16.04.2024, Writ

Appeal No. 2267/2024 was filed, which came to be dismissed. The said

dismissal was further challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way

of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 34567/2025, which also came

to be dismissed. Thus, the said judgment has attained finality up to the

Hon’ble Supreme Court. Denial of similar relief to the present appellants

would, therefore, result in discriminatory treatment and would offend

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

19. Accordingly, the writ appeal deserves to be and is hereby

<>

allowed.

<>

20. The order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge

in W.P. No.7870/2018 is quashed and set aside. The appellants were issued

6 WA-583-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16591

(VIVEK RUSIA)

<>

JUDGE

<>

(PRADEEP MITTAL)

<>

JUDGE

<>

appointment orders dated 26.08.2010 and joined duties after being declared

physically and medically fit. However, their appointments were cancelled

within a few days by order dated 09.09.2010 without assigning any reasons.

Therefore, appellants are held entitled to arrears of pay and all consequential

monetary benefits from the month of September 2010. The respondents are

directed to extend the said benefit to the appellants within four months from

the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

No order as to costs.

Praveen

7 WA-583-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16591