JUDGMENT N.V. ANJARIA, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Mukesh Rathod for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Hamesh Naidu for the respondent Corporation. 2. The petitioner seeks to challenge order dated 31st December, 2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of the respondent Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in so far as the said order denied to the petitioner the back wages from 29th October, 2004 till 31st July, 2011, that is from the date of termination till the date of retirement. 2.1 As per the said order, the respondent employer allowed the benefit of continuity of service for the purpose of pay fixation, payment of retirement dues and other benefits, however since the back wages part was not granted, the petitioner felt aggrieved opted to invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 3. The relevant facts in the background may be noticed. The petitioner who has challenged the aforesaid order is the widow of deceased Kantilal Vashrambhai Shrimali who died on 24th June, 2016. He retired from service with effect from 31st July, 2011. Said Kantilal was Senior Clerk appointed with the Corporation since 1972 in the Octroi Department, where after he was posted at Shardaben Hospital. 3.1 On 28th July, 1997 while the husband of the petitioner was posted in the Octroi Department, he was caught for demanding gratification of Rs. 400/- for releasing a two wheeler without giving the receipt. The Anti-Corruption Bureau which had carried out a raid, lodged a complaint and the said Kantilal Shrimali was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the case registered was Special Case No.05 of 1998. The accused Kantilal Shrimali was convicted and sentenced and imposed fine for the offences under the Act by judgment and order dated 27th February, 2004. 3.2 Shri Kantilal Shrimali was dismissed from service with effect from 29th October, 2004, in accordance with the Rules of the Corporation, pursuant to the aforesaid order of conviction. He however came to be acquitted by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.429 of 2004 which was decided as per judgment dated 09th April, 2015. It was during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal that said Kantilal Shrimali reached the age of superannuation and came to be retired. He however came to be acquitted by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.429 of 2004 which was decided as per judgment dated 09th April, 2015. It was during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal that said Kantilal Shrimali reached the age of superannuation and came to be retired. 3.3 It appears that Special Civil Application No.12938 of 2014 was filed before this Court, which was during the pendency of Criminal Appeal, wherein certain directions regarding retirement dues were prayed for prior to his acquittal. It appears that in the meantime the order of acquittal came to be passed. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 27th October, 2015 to direct the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner within eight weeks, in accordance with law. Thereafter followed the impugned order. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the denial of back wages was arbitrary in as much as the husband of the petitioner was acquitted and that no departmental inquiry was held or punishment pursuant the inquiry was imposed. It was submitted that the authorities treated the period from the date of termination till the date of superannuation as period on duty, yet denied the back wages. According to his submission, petitioner was entitled to full back wages for the span of seven years. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679 . He pressed into service yet another decision in G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446 to submit that in view of the said decisions, husband of the petitioner was entitled to be granted full back wages. 4.1 The petition was contested by the Corporation by filing affidavit-in-reply, in which it was contended that upon retirement of said employee Kantilal Shrimali, he was extended notional benefits including pension, gratuity, group insurance, leave encashment, general provident fund amount, etc., and that those benefits were computed and paid as per order dated 31st December, 2015 and the payment was reflected in the receipts dated 27th January, 2016. It was contended that the petitioner accepted the said payment without raising any objection or protest. It was contended that the petitioner accepted the said payment without raising any objection or protest. It was thereafter asserted that petitioner was criminally prosecuted for the offence of corruption and he was not entitled for back wages for the period between termination and superannuation when he never worked. 5. The question falls for consideration about entitlement of back wages to the said employee Kantilal Shrimali who was subjected to prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and who having been convicted by the trial court, came to be acquitted in the appeal. Departmental inquiry was not initiated against him. Upon acquittal, he was given all the benefits including the notional benefit for the interregnum between termination and superannuation but the back wages was not given to him. 5.1 In Union of India v. Jaipal Singh, (2003) LawSuit(SC) 1066 the facts were similar as the respondent was faced with criminal case. The Court held that in respect of the period after the conviction was suffered by the respondent, when he was out of service, the appellant employer could not be made liable to pay during the said period for which the services of the employee was not availed. The Court observed to held thus, "... ... ... we are in respectful agreement with the view taken in 1996 (11) SCC 603 . If prosecution, which ultimately resulted in acquittal of the person concerned was at the behest or by department itself, perhaps different considerations may arise. On the other hand, if as a citizen the employee or a public servant got involved in a criminal case and if after initial conviction by the trial court, he gets acquittal on appeal subsequently, the department cannot in any manner be found fault with for having kept him out of service, since the law obliges, a person convicted of an offence to be so kept out and not to be retained in service. Consequently, the reasons given in the decision relied upon, for the appellants are not only convincing but are in consonance with reasonableness as well. Consequently, the reasons given in the decision relied upon, for the appellants are not only convincing but are in consonance with reasonableness as well. Though exception taken to that part of the order directing reinstatement cannot be sustained and the respondent has to be re-instated, in service, for the reason that the earlier discharge was on account of those criminal proceedings and conviction only, the appellants are well within their rights to deny back wages to the respondents for the period he was not in service. The appellants cannot be made liable to pay for the period for which they could not avail of the services of the respondent. The High Court, in our view, committed a grave error, in allowing back wages aspects and considerations. ... ... ..." 5.2 In another decision in Banshi Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 1 SCC 324 , the Apex Court observed with reference to the facts of that case that it may be true that reason for long pendency of trial or the criminal appeal filed by the accused - employee may not be attributed to his acts of omission and commission, but the fact remains that the period between 31st July, 1976 when he was terminated and the date when he reached the superannuation, he did not work. The facts of that case are akin to one on hand. Once the employee was convicted, thereafter upon his acquittal he was reinstated and directed to be paid his pensionary benefits. The continuity of service was not denied but the question was whether the back wages should have been granted to him. 5.2.1 The Supreme Court held thus, "Departmental proceedings, however, could not be held as on the date of passing of the judgment of acquittal, he had already reached his age of superannuation. The learned counsel may be right that the decisions of this Court referred to hereinbefore involved the respective appellants therein on charge of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but, as noticed, it has also been laid down that each case has to be considered on its own facts. The High Court refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction having regard to the aforementioned decision of this Court in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat), (1996) 11 SCC 603 . We do not see any reason to take a different view. The High Court refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction having regard to the aforementioned decision of this Court in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat), (1996) 11 SCC 603 . We do not see any reason to take a different view. Grant of back wages, it is well settled, is not automatic. Even in cases where principles of natural justice have been held to have not been complied with, while issuing a direction of reinstatement, this Court had directed placing of the delinquent employee under suspension." (Para 11) 5.3 Referring to the decision in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) relied on by learned advocate for the petitioner, the Supreme Court held that the basic principle was that the proceedings in a criminal case and the proceedings in departmental inquiry can go simultaneously except where the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on same set of facts. It was sought to be pointed out that in that case the Supreme Court directed reinstatement of the appellant on the post of Security Officer with entire arrears of salary together with allowances. Decision in G.M. Tank (supra) of the Apex Court laid down that if the employee was acquitted in the criminal trial honourably, a contrary finding recorded in the departmental proceedings would be unjust and oppressive. A dismissal order held not sustainable. In that case also, the petitioner was prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Supreme Court set aside the order of dismissal, but without back wages. While the said directions were issued by the Apex Court in light of the facts attendant to the said controversy, decisions in Jaipal Singh (supra) and Banshi Dhar (supra) involved facts which were nearer to the facts of the present case to apply the principle of denial of back wages. The decisions in Jaipal Singh (supra) and Banshi Dhar (supra) were the decisions subsequent in point of time emanating the mandate. 6. The position of law emerges from the aforesaid decisions is that an employee who is criminally prosecuted but gets subsequently acquitted, would not be entitled to claim the back wages as a matter of right during the period from the date of his termination when his services were dispensed with in view of conviction and who retired after having subsequently secured acquittal from the appellate court. The employer could justifiably treat the period from the date of termination till the date of retirement of such employee, as a period sans back wages. While it is well settled that grant of back wages is never an automatic relief to follow, the theory of no-work-no-pay would apply. 6.1 The employee who had not worked for the said particular period would not be entitled to, and the employer who was unable to take work for the said period, would not be saddled with the payment of the salary in form of back wages for the said part. For deciding the question of granting or otherwise of the back wages, host of the factors would govern. One of the weighty factors for not granting the back wages would be that the employee had not worked for the period concerned. For an employee who was terminated from services on account of criminal prosecution, would not be able to claim back wages automatically and as a matter of course on the ground that he was subsequently acquitted. 7. Therefore, no case is made out to grant any relief to the petitioner. The petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged.