5 min readNew DelhiFeb 24, 2026 05:29 PM ISTThe Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied back wages to former Haryana Agricultural University research assistant who resigned under protest in 1987. (Image generated using AI)The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the plea of a former research assistant of Haryana Agricultural University (HAU) who had sought back wages for the time he remained out of service following his resignation in 1987 after participating in Janta Party protests in Haryana in 1986.Justice Namit Kumar heard the plea of one Bhag Singh Arya, who had challenged the trial court order, rejecting his wages for the period he remained out of service following his resignation over his involvement in the political protest during the service.The university had alleged that he did not work during the period in question, and his claim is liable to be rejected in view of the settled proposition of law, ‘no work no pay’ for the period he remained out of service.On February 19, the court chastised the petitioner for submitting two conflicting letters on the same day and said, “Such conduct conveys an expression and gesture of resentment coupled with an implied ultimatum.” Justice Namit Kumar said that the conduct of the petitioner, submitting two letters on the same date, cannot be appreciated. (Image enhanced using AI)The order added that it suggests that ‘either you withdraw the departmental proceedings or accept the resignation’, which approach cannot be permitted to prevail in any institution or department by any stretch of imagination.BackgroundThe petitioner, Bhag Singh Arya, joined HAU in 1974 and was chargesheeted by the police in December 1986.The university alleged gross misconduct, specifically citing wilful and unauthorised absence and the active participation in political activities.It was alleged that the petitioner led a “Jatha” of farmers on behalf of the ‘Janta Party’ and participated in demonstrations before government offices in Kurukshetra while on extraordinary leave, violating the Employees Conduct Rules.Following an initial enquiry report that favored Arya, the vice chancellor ordered a fresh enquiry, which Arya claimed was a form of harassment and victimisation.Consequently, on April 16, 1987, Arya submitted two letters: one protesting the second enquiry and another tendering his resignation “under protest”.It was alleged that the petitioner took an active part in political activities during his period of extraordinary leave and absence, and led a ‘Jatha’ of farmers on behalf of the ‘Janta Party’ in 1986.It was further alleged that he demonstrated before the residence of the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, and the office of Superintending Engineer, Haryana, State Electricity Board, Kurukshetra, and also raised slogans before the Panchayat Bhawan on the same day, where certain dignitaries were present in connection with some training programme.‘Conduct of petitioner not appreciated’Such acts alleged to violate Rule 5 (i) (no member of the service shall be a member of, or be otherwise associated with, any political party or any organisation which takes part in politics, nor shall he take part in, or subscribe in aid of, or assist in any other manner, any political movement or political activity) of the Employees Conduct Rule.The matter was enquired into by the enquiry officer, who, finding no substance in the charges, submitted an enquiry report in favour of the petitioner.However, the inquiry report was not accepted, being inadequate and incomplete by the vice chancellor, and consequently, a fresh enquiry officer was appointed in 1987.The letter of resignation in April 1987 was not conditional, since the petitioner had not submitted in the resignation letter that his resignation was subject to any condition.The conduct of the petitioner, submitting two letters on the same date, i.e., in April 1987, cannot be appreciated.Also Read | ‘Every saint has a past’: Why Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to UAPA accused ‘in touch’ with Gurpatwant PannunIn the first letter, he has submitted that since a departmental enquiry on the same charges had already been conducted, a second enquiry could not be held, and that he was being unnecessarily harassed, and therefore, he would not attend the enquiry.However, the subsequent enquiry was not a second enquiry, but in fact a re-enquiry to ascertain the facts, which every competent authority of a department or institution is empowered to do.The conduct of the petitioner in tendering his second letter of resignation on the same day, without awaiting the outcome of his first letter, also reflects conduct unbecoming of a sincere employee.The charges levelled against the petitioner were also serious in nature and in violation of the Employees Conduct Rules, barring any government employee from participating in political rallies and dharnas, etc.The charges were dropped on account of the acceptance of his resignation, and the university, by taking a lenient approach, did not continue with the departmental proceedings, despite being afforded the liberty to do so, vide judgment and decree of the trial court.Instead, the petitioner was allowed to rejoin his duties by treating him as in continuous service with effect from April 30, 1987.The petitioner is not entitled to back wages and arrears for the period in question during which he remained out of service, i.e., from the date of acceptance of his resignation, i.e., April 16, 1987, till the date of his re-joining services, pursuant to the trial court decree.Jagriti Rai works with The Indian Express, where she writes from the vital intersection of law, gender, and society. Working on a dedicated legal desk, she focuses on translating complex legal frameworks into relatable narratives, exploring how the judiciary and legislative shifts empower and shape the consciousness of citizens in their daily lives. Expertise Socio-Legal Specialization: Jagriti brings a critical, human-centric perspective to modern social debates. Her work focuses on how legal developments impact gender rights, marginalized communities, and individual liberties. Diverse Editorial Background: With over 4 years of experience in digital and mainstream media, she has developed a versatile reporting style. Her previous tenures at high-traffic platforms like The Lallantop and Dainik Bhaskar provided her with deep insights into the information needs of a diverse Indian audience. Academic Foundations: Post-Graduate in Journalism from the Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), India’s premier media training institute. Master of Arts in Ancient History from Banaras Hindu University (BHU), providing her with the historical and cultural context necessary to analyze long-standing social structures and legal evolutions. ... Read More © IE Online Media Services Pvt LtdTags:Punjab and Haryana High Courtresignation