Back wages after unlawful dismissal upheld; Fundamental Rule 54 could not defeat the claim where natural justice was breached.

Back wages were upheld where dismissal had been imposed without enquiry or show-cause notice, and the breach of natural justice was treated as material to the employee's monetary entitlement. Fundamental Rule 54 could not be used to deny salary for the period out of service because such denial depends on a specific order based on relevant facts and lawful consideration; here, the reinstatement direction and the absence of disciplinary process made the rule inapplicable. The respondent was therefore entitled to back wages for the intervening period, and the contrary reliance on Fundamental Rule 54 was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to back wages for the period between dismissal and reinstatement and whether Fundamental Rule 54 could be invoked to deny such wages.

Analysis: The dismissal had been made without any enquiry and without a show-cause notice, and the appellate authority had already directed reinstatement while treating the intervening period as dies-non for limited purposes. The denial of salary under Fundamental Rule 54 depends on a specific order made on relevant facts after lawful consideration, but in the present case the absence of disciplinary enquiry and breach of natural justice were material features. In those circumstances, the order granting back wages was upheld and the rule was held inapplicable to defeat the claim.

Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to back wages for the period out of service, and the invocation of Fundamental Rule 54 to deny them was rejected.

---