The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed the State’s appeal against an order for the payment of back wages to a terminated employee. The court found that the termination of the employee based on a single clerical mistake during her entire service was “excessive” and that a minor penalty could have been imposed instead.
The court directed the State to pay 50% of the back wages to the employee.
The division bench, consisting of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Gajendra Singh, observed that the employee had been terminated for a single instance of negligence in her long service career. The termination was imposed by the Collector without issuing a show-cause notice or conducting an inquiry, making the order “stigmatic” and unsustainable. The bench agreed with the Writ Court’s finding that the termination was unjustified and without proper hearing.
The appeal was filed against a decision dated August 17, 2024, which allowed the employee to challenge her termination in 2017.
During the hearing on January 8, 2025, the Deputy Advocate General (DAG) argued that the appeal was focused only on the second part of the order, which granted 50% back wages to the petitioner. The court noted that, based on the honorarium the employee received, the back wages were not a substantial amount.
The DAG further argued that the issue was not limited to this case, as the State was dealing with similar matters in other cases. However, the court responded that it would address those cases when they came up.
The DAG also contended that the employee had not claimed she was unemployed, which, according to the Supreme Court’s policy, is necessary to claim back wages. The court, however, was not convinced by this argument.
Regarding the termination, the DAG suggested that the State could proceed with fresh proceedings against the employee, as the alleged misappropriation had not been adjudicated. The bench, frustrated by this suggestion, reminded the DAG that the principle of natural justice and the need for an inquiry were known from the start.
The court also questioned whether a single clerical mistake warranted termination, given the employee had been in service since 2008 and had made only one mistake in her entire career. The termination, the court noted, lacked any financial misappropriation or intentional wrongdoing.
The court further pointed out that minor penalties could have been applied instead of termination. It expressed confusion over the logic that an employee, even if employed elsewhere, should be denied back wages, especially when the termination was deemed illegal.
In its final order, the court upheld the Writ Court’s decision, stating that since the termination was found to be illegal, the employee was entitled to 50% of her back wages. The court also clarified that a terminated employee must earn for their livelihood, and this should not be a reason to deny back wages.
Thus, the court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the employee should be paid 50% of her back wages.
