# Abdul Wahab v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1550
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-13
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 10380 of 2024
- **Bench:** Vikram D. Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abdul-wahab-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53531
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Back
Wages - Principle of "No Work No Pay" - Not
applicable where employee is prevented from
working due to employer's illegal order -
Petitioner's appointment was duly approved on
20.5.1994. Director of Education cancelled the
approval on 27.2.1998, which was quashed by
5 All. Abdul Wahab Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1551
the High Court on 5.10.2023 with a direction
that "necessary consequences will follow". In
contempt proceedings, the authorities stated in
compliance affidavit that the petitioner has been
treated in service w.e.f. 13.5.1998. However,
DIOS denied salary on the plea that petitioner
had not actually worked after cancellation of
approval. Held: Principle of "no work no pay"
does not apply where the employer itself
restrains the employee from working. Once the
cancellation order dated 27.2.1998 was set
aside, the original approval revived, and
petitioner stood reinstated w.e.f. 13.5.1998.
Since the fault lay with the employer in not
permitting him to work, the petitioner is entitled
to back wages from 13.5.1998 till retirement
along with consequential benefits. (Paras 10,
11, 12). (E-5)

## Text

1550 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
receipt i.e on 22.11.2024. Seemingly, the
said report, which is the earliest report,
appears to be the most authentic report
meeting the guidelines of the FSSA as well
as the Customs Department and this court
finds no plausible reasons for denying the
benefit of the said earliest and/or first
report to the importer.

(43) The lackadaisical attitude of the
department in not following the established
guidelines relating to drawing samples and
sending for testing cannot be given
concession to in any manner. Apparently, it
seems the department indiscriminately
drew samples and sent to testing Centre at
its own whims and wanted to keep the
importer at bay during the pendency of the
Appeal filed by them against the advance
ruling, relating to classification of 'roasted
areca nuts'. The act of the department in
relying on a test report, which could not
have been carried out in the first place, also
seems to be ill-founded. Thus, the seizure
of the commodity 'roasted areca nuts'
apparently seems to be motivated and
driven by malafide and cannot be allowed
to be sustained.

(44) For all the above reasons, Writ
Tax No. 71 of 2025 deserves to be allowed,
in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the present case. This Court while directing
for the release of the commodity imported
as 'roasted areca nuts" classified under
CTH 2008 19 20 on usual compliances of
the prevailing rules, hereby quashes the
seizure memo dated 10/03/2025. It is made
clear that this court has only dealt with the
issue relating to classification of the
'roasted areca nuts' imported by the
petitioner under CTH 2008 19 20 and has
not expressed any opinion on the other
avenues of the import or any issue not
raised in these Appeal/petitions. Further, it
is directed that since, these 'roasted areca
nuts' had been imported some six months
ago, the aforesaid direction for release, is
subject to the condition that the importer
provides for treatment of these roasted
areca nuts by 'Gamma Irradiation process',
wherein the moulds and insect's in nuts can
be sterilized/ treated as per the proposition
of treatment laid down by the Bhaba
Atomic
research
Centre,
Trombay,
Mumbai, to the compete satisfaction of the
authority.

(45) As a priori, both, Custom Appeal
No. 3 of 2024 and Custom Appeal No. 3 of
2025 fails and Writ Tax No. 71 of 2025 is
allowed in the above terms.

(46) There shall be no order as to cost.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1550
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 10380 of 2024

Abdul Wahab ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
J.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Rakesh Kumar

Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Back
Wages - Principle of "No Work No Pay" - Not
applicable where employee is prevented from
working due to employer's illegal order -
Petitioner's appointment was duly approved on
20.5.1994. Director of Education cancelled the
approval on 27.2.1998, which was quashed by
5 All. Abdul Wahab Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1551
the High Court on 5.10.2023 with a direction
that "necessary consequences will follow". In
contempt proceedings, the authorities stated in
compliance affidavit that the petitioner has been
treated in service w.e.f. 13.5.1998. However,
DIOS denied salary on the plea that petitioner
had not actually worked after cancellation of
approval. Held: Principle of "no work no pay"
does not apply where the employer itself
restrains the employee from working. Once the
cancellation order dated 27.2.1998 was set
aside, the original approval revived, and
petitioner stood reinstated w.e.f. 13.5.1998.
Since the fault lay with the employer in not
permitting him to work, the petitioner is entitled
to back wages from 13.5.1998 till retirement
along with consequential benefits. (Paras 10,
11, 12). (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikram D.
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri J.P. Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. It is submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
was appointed as a Clerk in the respondentinstitution and the approval was granted by
the District Inspector of Schools on
28.5.1994.
The
petitioner
joined
the
institution on 30.5.1994 after issuance of
appointment letter. The petitioner was
however, no paid salary and thereafter, on
7.6.1994 the District Inspector of Schools
passed an order suspending the operation of
the order dated 28.5.1994 granting approval
to the appointment of the petitioner. Against
the aforesaid order dated 7.6.1994, the
petitioner filed Writ Petition No.24031 of
1994. In the meantime, an order was passed
directing payment of salary to another
employee Suhail Alam Numani on 7.6.1997,
who was also selected along with the
petitioner on the ground that he was selected
on the post held by the petitioner. The
aforesaid order dated 7.6.1997 was subject
matter of challenge by the petitioner in Writ
Petition No.20339 of 1997 wherein an
interim order was granted on 23.6.1997
staying the effect and operation of the order
dated 29.5.1997 and 9.6.1997. The aforesaid
writ petition was allowed by judgment dated
19.9.1997 and the order of the Director of
Education dated 29.5.1997 was quashed and
a direction was issued for fresh decision and
same direction being issued in Writ Petition
No.24031 of 1994. The relevant paragraph is
extracted hereunder:-

"Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, the petition
no.20339 of 1997 is allowed. The impugned
order dated 29.5.1997 is hereby quashed and
respondent no.1 is directed to decide the
matter a fresh in accordance with law by a
reasoned order.

However, it will be open to the
parties to submit a fresh representation along
with a certified copy of this order and a true
copy of the writ petition before respondent
no.1. On such representation being made,
respondent no.1 shall dispose of the same by
a reasoned order within two months from the
date of submission of the representation. The
writ petition no.24031 of 1994 stands
disposed of in view of the direction given.
The parties shall bear their own costs."

3. In pursuance to the aforesaid
judgment dated 19.9.1997, on 27.2.1998
the Director of Education passed an order
holding the petitioner's appointment to be
not in accordance with law and the claim
of Suhail Alam Numani was also rejected.
The petitioner thereafter, has filed Writ
Petition No.9925 of 1998 challenging the
order dated 27.2.1998. The aforesaid writ
petition was allowed by judgment dated
5.10.2023. The operative portion of the
aforesaid
judgment
is
extracted
hereunder:-
1552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"13. Having heard the learned
counsel for the parties, I find that the
statutory requirement of publication of
advertisement
in
widely
circulated
newspaper is in respect of appointments of
Heads and teachers of an educational
institution, as per Regulation 10 of Chapter
2 of the Regulations, whereas the Court
does not find any such provision under
Chapter 3 which is meant for filling up of
post of non teaching staff.

14.
Even
otherwise,
if
the
constitutional mandate enshrined under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India is looked into, the Court finds that
there were two paper publications at least
one of which was a widely circulated
newspaper
published
form
Varanasi,
whereas the institution is located at
Azamgarh and there was local publication
also from another newspaper published
from Azamgarh.

15. In view of the above, the
selection and appointment of the petitioner
on this score could not be dislodged and
there being no other infirmity recorded in
the order impugned, the order impugned
cannot sustain.

16. The writ petition succeeds
and is allowed. The order impugned dated
27.02.1998 passed by the Director of
Education (Secondary), U.P. in relation to
the petitioner is quashed.

17. Necessary consequences shall
follow."

4. However, the aforesaid judgment
dated 5.10.2023 was not complied with by
the
respondents
as
such
Contempt
Application (Civil) No.1033 of 2024 was
filed.
Notices
were
issued
to
the
respondents on 15.5.2024. The respondents
have filed an affidavit of compliance
annexing therewith the copy of the order
dated 13.5.2024 treating the petitioner in
service w.e.f. 13.5.1998. The relevant
paragraph 6 of the compliance affidavit is
extracted hereunder:-

"That since the deponent vide
order dated 13.05.2024 has accepted the
claim of the applicant and applicant is
treated in service from 13.05.1998, hence
the further proceeding shall be initiated in
the matter regarding the payment of
arrears of salary and other benefit and in
completing the said exercise some more
time shall take place."

5.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
submits
that
the
contempt
application thereafter was disposed of by
order dated 15.5.2024. The order dated
15.5.2024 is extracted hereunder:

"A compliance affidavit has been
filed on behalf of District Inspector of
Schools today which is taken on record.

Sri
Pawan
Kumar,
learned
Standing
Counsel
states
that
officer
concerned has passed an order on
13.05.2024 by which the applicant has
been treated in service from 27.02.1998.
Copy of which has been brought on record
as annexure-1 to compliance affidavit.

In view of said fact, as the order
of writ Court has been complied with, the
contempt
application
is
rendered
infructuous and stands dismissed.

It is needless to say that once the
opposite party passed the order on
13.05.2024 treating the applicant in service
from 27.02.1998, necessary consequences
will follow."

6. The order dated 15.5.2024
specifically records that the petitioner has
been treated in service from 27.2.1998 and
necessary
consequences
will
follow.
Thereafter, the petitioner preferred claim
5 All. Abdul Wahab Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1553
for back wages from 27.2.1998 till
retirement. The aforesaid claim of the
petitioner has been rejected by the
impugned order dated 22.6.2024 on the
principle of 'no work no pay'.

7. It is submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
was not permitted to work by the
respondents by passing order suspending
the approval of the petitioner by order
dated 7.6.1994 and thereafter, by cancelling
the approval of the petitioner by order
dated 27.2.1998. The aforesaid order dated
27.2.1998 was set aside by order dated
5.10.2023 as a consequence thereof the
petitioner's approval dated 20.5.1994 stood
revived. The respondents were themselves
to blame for not permitting the petitioner to
work on the post in question despite the
approval dated 25.5.1994 which stood
withdrawn by order dated 27.2.1998. The
order dated 27.2.1998 was set aside by this
Court by order dated 5.10.2023 as such the
petitioner is entitled to the arrears of salary
in view of the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Shobha Ram
Raturi Vs. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Limited and others, 2016 (6) SCC
663 to submit that if there is a fault on the
part of the employer in not taking service
and the employee has been denied to join
the duties on account of any order passed
by the employer, then the petitioner would
entitled for back wages and the principle of
'no work no pay' would not be applicable in
the facts and circumstances.

8. Learned Standing Counsel has
opposed the prayer made in the writ
petition and submits that the impugned
order has been rightly passed. The
petitioner has not been working in the
institution from 27.2.1998 till date of his
retirement and as such the principle of 'no
work no pay' would be applicable and the
petitioner would not be entitled for arrears
of salary. In this respect, paragraphs 12, 14
and 15 of the counter affidavit filed by
learned Standing Counsel is extracted
hereunder:-

"12. That in compliance with
order 14.03.2024 passed by Hon'ble
Contempt Court in Contempt Application
(Civil) No.1033 of 2024, the District
Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh had
decided the matter vide order dated
22.06.2024 whereby claim of the petitioner
for payment of salary was rejected that he
had worked in the institution as Assistant
Clerk only for the period from 1st July,
1994 to 29th December, 1994 i.e. for less
than six months and thereafter he had
neither appeared in the institution nor
performed any work. Copy of order dated
22.06.2024 passed by the District Inspector
of Schools, Azamgarh is being annexed
herewith and is marked as Annexure
No.CA-4 to this counter affidavit.

14. That the date of birth of the
petitioner is 03.02.1964 and he had already
attained the age of superannuation on 28th
February, 2024 and since he had worked
and paid salary from the State exchequer
from May, 1994 to November, 1994 (i.e.
only for 06 months), therefore, in view of
Para-4(1) of the Govt. Order dated
07.05.2017, he is not entitled for pension or
any pensionary benefits because in para4(1) of the Govt. Order dated 07.05.2017
issued
by
the
Shiksha(8)
Anubhag,
Government of U.P., Lucknow it has been
made clear that under Article 474 of the
Civil Services Regulations, only those
teachers/non-teaching
staffs
who
had
completed 10 years of qualifying service,
are
entitled
for
pension
and
other
pensionary benefits. Copy of Govt. Order
dated 07.05.2017 issued by Shiksha(8)
1554 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Anubhag, Government of U.P., Lucknow is
being annexed herewith and is marked as
Annexure
No.CA-5
to
this
counter
affidavit.

15. That aggrieved by the order
dated 22.06.2024 passed by the District
Inspector
of
Schools,
Azamgarh
the
petitioner had filed instant writ petition
which is devoid of any merits and is liable
to be dismissed especially in view of the
facts that the petitioner had worked in the
institution from 1st July, 1994 to 29th
December, 1994 (i.e. for only 6 months)
and thereafter he had not worked in the
institution, therefore, he is not entitled to
claim salary on the principle of "No Work
No Pay" and since he had not completed 10
years of qualifying service, he is not
entitled for pension and other pensionary
benefits."

9. Further submission of learned
Standing Counsel is to the effect that in the
previous round of litigation in Writ Petition
No.24031 of 1994, which was decided on
19.9.1997 a direction was issued to decide
the
representation
of
the
petitioner.
Although, the writ petition was allowed
however, no necessary consequence of
reinstatement was granted by this Court, as
a result of the same, the petitioner was not
reinstated and the matter was again
examined by the Director of Education in
compliance of order of this Court and,
therefore, there is no question of payment
of arrears of salary.

10. In the present case, it is to be seen
that the petitioner's appointment was duly
approved
by
order
dated
20.5.1994.
Subsequently, the same was put in abeyance
by order dated 17.6.1994. Thereafter, the
aforesaid order of approval was cancelled by
Director of Education on 27.2.1998. The
order dated 27.2.1998 was set aside by this
Court by judgment dated 5.10.2023 in Writ
Petition No.9925 of 1998 with a specific
direction that necessary consequences will
follow. The respondents in their compliance
affidavit filed in the contempt proceedings
have specifically stated that the applicant has
been treated in service w.e.f. 13.5.1998. This
fact has not been disputed by learned
Standing
Counsel.
However,
the
only
objection raised by learned Standing Counsel
is to the effect that the petitioner has not
worked in the institution during the period of
cancellation of approval of the petitioner by
the Director of Education. However, it is not
in dispute that the order dated 27.2.1998
cancelling the approval of the petitioner has
been set aside by order dated 5.10.2023 in
which it has been specifically stated that
necessary consequences will follow in respect
of service of the petitioner. Therefore, the
petitioner was reinstated w.e.f. 13.5.1998.
The question with regard to the principle of
'no work no pay' would not be applicable
where the employer passes an order
restraining the employee from working
without justification. By passing of the order
dated 5.10.2023, the order dated 27.2.1998
passed by the Director of Education was set
aside (the order dated 27.2.1998 pertains to
the cancellation of approval of the petitioner).
The aforesaid order once being set aside, the
original order of approval stood revived and,
therefore, the petitioner as per the admitted
case of the respondents, was reinstated w.e.f.
13.5.1998. Once the petitioner has been
reinstated w.e.f. 13.5.1998 and the employer
is at fault in not permitting the petitioner to
work, as a consequence of judgment dated
5.10.2023 which has attained finality,
therefore, the aforesaid principle of 'no work
no pay' would not be applicable.

11. It is further to be seen that
definitely in the earlier round of litigation
the matter was remanded back to the
5 All. Sanghpriya Gautam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1555
respondent authorities. However,
the respondent authorities again passed the
order dated 27.2.1998 which has been set
aside by this Court by order dated
5.10.2023 with a finding that necessary
consequences will follow. The respondent
authorities have treated the petitioner in
service w.e.f. 13.5.1998 as a consequence
of judgment of this Court dated 5.10.2023.
Once the respondent authorities have
themselves accepted the petitioner in
service from 13.5.1998, then the petitioner
would be entitled to back wages as the
reason for not permitting the petitioner to
work arising out of an order dated
27.2.1998 has been set aside by this Court
by order dated 5.10.2023.

12. Accordingly, the impugned order
dated 22.6.2024 passed by respondent nos.4/5
is set aside. The writ petition is allowed and
the respondents are directed to pay the back
wages of the petitioner from 13.5.1998 till the
date of retirement within a period of three
months and since the petitioner has already
retired from service the pensionary benefits
shall also be granted to the petitioner in
accordance with law.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1555
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 5494 of 2025

Sanghpriya Gautam ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Satyendra Chandra Tripathi, Shiv Poojan
Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Archana Singh, C.S.C.

Service
Law
-
Assistant
Teacher
Appointment - Equivalence of D.Ed. and
D.El.Ed. - Petitioner completed two-year
Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) from M.P. Board
(2014)
and
qualified
TET
(2015)
-
Appointment order issued in 2024 but school
not allotted; later appointment cancelled on
ground that D.Ed. not equivalent to Diploma
in
Elementary
Education
(D.El.Ed.)
as
required under NCTE Regulations - Challenge
thereto.

Held: NCTE notification (23.08.2010) prescribes
"Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever
name
known)"
as
minimum
qualification.
However,
syllabus
comparison
reveals
substantial differences: D.El.Ed. focuses on child
psychology, elementary education pedagogy,
and inclusive education, while D.Ed. is more
general,
oriented
towards
upper
primary.
Therefore,
D.Ed.
cannot
be
treated
as
equivalent to D.El.Ed. Appointment rightly
cancelled. No interference warranted.

Writ Petition dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Harsh Kumar & Anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2014 0 Supreme (All) 276 (affirmed by SC)

2. Km. Pallavi Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (2018) 6
ADJ 329

3. Anju Kumari & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ
A No.41992 of 2016, decided on 18.01.2018

4. Smt. Mala Yadav & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:26366

5. U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad Vs St. of U.P. &
ors. (Division Bench judgment)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)