# Anuj Kumar & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 536
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-11
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 16994 of 2024
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anuj-kumar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54255
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sheet carrying sufficient and intelligible particulars of the charges or imputations that may enable
the petitioner to understand and answer the same effectively.

33. In the event of the respondents electing to pursue fresh disciplinary proceedings, after the
issue of a charge-sheet conforming to the law, the inquiry shall be held afresh strictly, in
accordance with the procedure indicated in the body of this judgment relating to inquiries where a
major penalty may be imposed.

34. In the circumstances of the case, not only the impugned orders, with the aforesaid liberty,
are fit to be quashed and the petitioner reinstated in service but, the charge-sheets as well, again
with the liberty indicated. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
orders dated 29.06.2019 passed by the Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Meerut and the impugned
appellate order dated 23.05.2022 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut are hereby
quashed. The charge-sheet dated 11.07.2018 as well as the one dated 01.11.2018, both issued by
the Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Meerut, are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in
service forthwith and paid his current salary, in the same manner as any other employee of the
Nigam.

35. It will be open to the respondents to pursue fresh disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner, if they so elect, in the manner indicated in this judgment. If the respondents elect to
pursue fresh proceedings against the petitioner, his entitlement to receive arrears of salary shall
abide by the result of those proceedings. In the event no fresh proceedings are elected to be taken,
the petitioner shall be entitled to 50% of his emoluments for the period that he has remained out of
service, together with 6% simple interest from the date of this order until payment of arrears.

36. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 536
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 16994 of 2024

Anuj Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Validity of denial of payment of salary for the period, during which the petitioners were forced to stay
away from work, in consequence of an order, which was subsequently quashed.

Headnotes
2 All. Anuj Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
537
(A) Service law - Arrears of salary - Petitioner's appointment as Instructor was cancelled on the
ground of not possessing the certificate - Writ petition against the cancellation order was
allowed - Though the petitioner was reinstated in service, his claim of arrear of salary was
rejected on the ground of 'No work, no payment' - Validity challenged : (E-1)
Held : Not rendering work, cannot be made basis of denying emoluments to the petitioners for the period
that they were forced to stay away from work, in consequence of a decision of the respondents themselves,
that has not survived judicial scrutiny in the first instance, and after remand, their own consideration of the
matter - The respondents cannot deny the petitioners their arrears of salary for the different periods of time
payable to petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and the impugned order is manifestly illegal. [Para 13 and 19]

Case Law Cited
Shobha Ram Raturi vs. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and others, (2016) 16 SCC 663; Prayag Narain
Dubey (P.N. Dubey) vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. and another, 2018 (8) ADJ 561; U.P.S.R.T.C. and another vs. Prayag
Narain Dubey (P.N. Dubey), 2018 ADJOnline 0727; Rajesh Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others, 2023
SCC OnLine All 3097; Special Appeal (D) No. 704 of 2024, State of U.P. and 2 others vs. Rajesh Kumar Yadav
decided on 05.10.2023; Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal, (1994) 1
SCC 541 - referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India - Article 226; Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 - Regulation 46(1).

List of Keywords
Reinstatement, Arrear of salary, Service benefit, Appointment, Probation, Cancellation, Unconditional order,
Employment, No work no pay, Unqualified reinstatement, Rendering work, Judicial scrutiny, Unilateral act,
Honourably acquitted.

Case Arising From
Impugned order dated 01.10.2024 declining payment of salary to the petitioners for the different periods of
time that they were out of service on account of an order, that was subsequently quashed by this Court in a
writ petition.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Siddharth Khare.
Advs. for the Respondents : Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the Director,
Training and Employment, U.P., Lucknow, declining payment of salary to the petitioners for the
different periods of time that they were out of service on account of an order, that was subsequently
quashed by this Court in a writ petition earlier preferred by them, and their reinstatement in service
pursuant to this Court's order in Writ-A No.4569 of 2017 decided on 19.12.2018. The petitioners
have further prayed that a mandamus be issued to the respondents to sanction and pay arrears of
salary in case of petitioner No.1 for the period 19.01.2017 to 02.01.2020, petitioner No.2 for the
period 01.01.2017 to 07.01.2020, and, petitioner No.3 for the period 01.01.2017 to 16.12.2019,
within a period of time to be specified by this Court. A further mandamus has been sought,
directing the respondents to treat the period of this absence as period spent on duty for the purpose
of granting them other service benefits.
538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. The Director, Training and Employment, U.P., Lucknow issued an advertisement, bearing
No. Instructor Training/2/2014 dated 07.11.2014, inviting applications for a large number of posts
of instructors in different trades to be appointed to various Government Industrial Training
Institutes in the State. The posts advertised include posts of Instructors in the trade of Machinist
(Grinder). The petitioners were eligible and qualified for the said posts. They applied in response to
the advertisement aforesaid. The petitioners were awarded quality points based on their High
School Certificate, National Trade Certificate and Craft Instructor Certificate in the manner that the
High School Certificate was granted a weightage of 50%, the National Trade Certificate 20% and
the Craft Instructor Certificate 15%.

3. A merit list was drawn up on the basis of the quality point marks earned. The petitioners
were called to participate in an interview. Each of the petitioners appeared on the scheduled date
and were interviewed. The interview carried 15% marks. A final merit list was drawn up by the
respondents, where each of the three petitioners stood selected. The quality point marks awarded to
petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 on the basis of their academic qualifications worked out to 52.157, 56.992
and 51.186, respectively. To these quality point marks awarded to the petitioners, marks earned in
the interview were added, on the foot of which the final selection list was drawn up.

4. The petitioners were appointed as Instructor Machinist (Grinder) and were issued letters of
appointment, all dated 13.11.2016. They were appointed on probation for a period of two years.
The first petitioner was posted at the Government Industrial Training Institute, Farrukhabad;
petitioner No.2 at the Government Industrial Training Institute, Pandu Nagar, Kanpur; and,
petitioner No.3 at the Government Industrial Training Institute, Karaundi, Varanasi. Each of the
petitioners joined duties at their respective stations of posting. The petitioners say that their work
and conduct have been satisfactory.

5. On 18.01.2017, similarly worded orders were passed by the Director, Training and
Employment, U.P., Lucknow, cancelling the petitioners' appointments. The appointments were
cancelled on the ground that each of the petitioners did not possess the certificate under the Craft
Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) in the relevant trade and were not, therefore, entitled to
appointment. Consequential orders were issued by the Principals of the Government Industrial
Training Institutes, where the petitioners were serving, notifying cancellation of the petitioners'
appointment. These orders were challenged before this Court by means of Writ-A No.4569 of
2017, jointly filed by all the three petitioners here. The writ petition aforesaid was allowed by this
Court vide judgment and order dated 19.12.2018 in terms of the following findings and orders:

"Having considered the rival submissions, the Court notes that there is no dispute that
the impugned orders came to be passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners. The order on its plain terms and impact does visit the petitioners with grave and
serious civil consequences. It was therefore, incumbent upon the respondents to place the
petitioners on notice of the proposed action. More importantly what emerges from the above
discussion is that the respondents have failed to consider the defence which could have been
proffered namely of the CITS certificate in the relevant trade being only a preferential qualification
and not an essential prerequisite. The Court further notes that Rule 9 carries to it a proviso which
postulates that in case a candidate does not possess the preferential qualification as prescribed for
2 All. Anuj Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
539
different trades, he still obtains a right to be considered for selection and if selected is statutorily
granted time as per Rule 17(3) to acquire the said qualification.

These grounds and aspects would clearly merit the matter being remitted to the
concerned respondent for taking a decision afresh.

Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 18 January 2017 are hereby
quashed. The matter shall in consequence stand remanded to the second respondent for decision
afresh and in light of the observations made hereinabove.

The consequential orders dated 19 January 2017 and 20 January 2017 shall also
consequently stand set aside."

6. In compliance with the said order, unconditional orders of reinstatement in service were
passed by the Director, Training and Employment, U.P., Lucknow, where one of these, relating to
petitioner No.3, Dharmendra Kumar, has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure No.7. The
petitioner asserts in paragraph No.15 that similarly worded orders were issued in regard to other
two petitioners as well. The order of reinstatement passed in compliance with the orders of this
Court dated 19.12.2018 in Writ-A No.4569 of 2017 reads:

"प्रभशक्षण एवां सेवायोजन ननिेशालय, उ0प्र0
रोजगार िवन, गुरु गोववांि भसांह मागथ,
पत्राांक /एक/िी-1/0307/4569/2017/अनुज/100
लखनऊ दिनाांकः 13/12/2019
कार्ायलर् आिेश

िी धमेंर कुमार की ननयुन्क्त ननिेशालय के पत्र सांख्या 282/एक/िी-1/ 0307/ननयुन्क्त ननरस्त/126
दिनाांक 18.01.2017 द्वारा ननरस्त की गई। न्जसके ववरुद्ध याची द्वारा मा0 उच्च न्यायालय में ररि
याधचका सांख्या 4569/2017/अनुज कुमार और िो अन्य िनाम उ0प्र0 राज्य और चार अन्य िाखखल की गई।
प्रश्नगत ररि याधचका में मा0 उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा दिनाांक 19.12.2018 का प्रिावी अांश ननम्नवत हैः

Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 18 January 2017 are hereby
quashed. The matter shall in consequence stand remanded to the second respondent for decision
afresh and in light of the observations made hereinabove.

The consequential orders dated 19 January 2017 and 20 January 2017 shall also consequently
stand set aside. Order Date :- 19.12.2018

मा0 उच्च न्यायालय इलाहािाि द्वारा पाररत आिेश के समािर में वविागीय स्तर पर गदठत की गई
सभमनत के दिनाांक 09.08.2019 को सम्यक अभिमत के आधार पर िी धमेन्र कुमार पुत्र िी राम सूरत को
व्यवसाय मशीननष्ि ग्राइन्डर के पि पर पुनः पि स्थावपत ककया जाता है। शेष पूवथ में िी धमेंर कुमार जी को
जारी ननयुन्क्त पत्र में उजलेखखत शतें/ प्रनतिन्ध यथावत लागू होगी।
(कुलिीप भसजकू)
540 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ननिेशक"

7. In compliance, petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 were reinstated in service by the Principals,
Government Industrial Training Institute, Naini, Prayagraj and Karaundi vide orders dated
03.01.2020, 08.01.2020 and 17.12.2019, respectively. The petitioners joined duties and have been
working satisfactorily. The petitioners, however, were not paid salary for the period that they were
out of employment on account of the order impugned, since quashed by this Court and which was
submitted to unconditionally by the respondents. The periods of time, for which arrears of salary
were claimed by the petitioners, is as follows: petitioner No.1 19.01.2017 to 02.01.2020, petitioner
No.2 01.01.2017 to 07.01.2020, and, petitioner No.3 from 01.01.2017 to 16.12.2019.

8. The petitioners represented their cause for sanction and disbursement of arrears of salary,
but the same remained unheeded. Representations dated 24.06.2021, 14.09.2023 have been
mentioned in this connection and copies brought on record. When no action was taken, the
petitioners filed Writ-A No.3329 of 2024, which was disposed of, ordering the Director, Training
and Employment, U.P., Lucknow, to look into the matters and consider the petitioners' claim for
arrears of salary for the respective periods of time between the orders of cancellation of
appointment and reinstatement in service and pass final orders in the matter, as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of three months from the production of a certified copy of the
order made by this Court. The order was directed to be a speaking order.

9. Eschewing unnecessary detail, the Director, Training and Employment, U.P., Lucknow by
means of the impugned order dated 01.10.2024 rejected the petitioners' claim on ground that for the
periods of time that the petitioners claimed salary, they were not in service, and, therefore, not
entitled to it without having worked. In substance, the principle of 'no work no pay' was invoked.
Representations of all the three petitioners were rejected by the order impugned.

10. Aggrieved, this writ petition has been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution.

11. Heard Mr. Siddharth Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sharad Chandra
Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of all the respondents.

12. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, what we find is that this Court vide
judgment and order dated 19.12.2018 passed in Writ-A No.4569 of 2017, instituted by the
petitioners raising challenge to the orders of cancellation of their appointments, allowed the writ
petition and quashed those orders, remanding the matter to the second respondent to take decision
afresh, bearing in mind the remarks in the judgment. Now, upon remand, the orders for
reinstatement of the petitioners in service were passed without imposing any condition, restricting
emoluments payable to the period after reinstatement. Possibly, that could not have been done
either. The reason is that the petitioners did not discharge duties for the period of time that they
now claim arrears on account of the impugned orders, cancelling their appointments. Prior to those
orders, the petitioners were regularly discharging their duties. After this Court quashed the orders
cancelling the petitioners' appointments with a remand to the respondents, the respondents
acknowledged their mistake and granted unqualified reinstatement in service. In these
circumstances, no blame can be fastened upon the petitioners for not performing their duties during
2 All. Anuj Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
541
the respective periods of time after the orders of cancellation since quashed by this Court and the
orders of reinstatement passed in each case. The petitioners were kept away from their duties by the
respondents and forced not to work pursuant to a decision, which the respondents themselves
acknowledged to be illegal, when considering the petitioners' claim, post judgment of this Court in
Writ-A No.4569 of 2017. The respondents have found no flaw in the petitioners' appointments.

13. In our opinion, therefore, not rendering work, cannot be made basis of denying
emoluments to the petitioners for the period that they were forced to stay away from work, in
consequence of a decision of the respondents themselves, that has not survived judicial scrutiny in
the first instance, and after remand, their own consideration of the matter.

14. The question that falls for consideration here arose in Shobha Ram Raturi v. Haryana
Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and others, (2016) 16 SCC 663, where it was observed:

"1. It is not a matter of dispute, that the appellant was retired from service on 31-122002, even though he would have, in the ordinary course, attained his date of retirement on
superannuation, only on 31-12-2005. The appellant assailed the order of his retirement dated 3112-2002 by filing Writ Petition No. 751 of 2003. The same was allowed by a learned Single Judge
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on 14-9-2010 [Shobha Ram Raturi v. Haryana Vidyut
Prasaran Nigam Ltd., WP (C) No. 751 of 2003, order dated 14-9-2010 (P&H)] . The operative
part of the order is extracted hereunder:

"Accordingly the present writ petition is allowed; order dated 31-12-2002 (Annexure P4) is quashed. The petitioner would be treated to be in continuous service with all consequential
benefits. However it is clarified that since the petitioner has not worked on the post maxim of "no
work, no pay" shall apply and the consequential benefits shall only be determined towards terminal
benefits. However there will be no order as to costs."

2. The denial of back wages to the appellant by the High Court vide its order dated 14-92010 [Shobha Ram Raturi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., WP (C) No. 751 of 2003, order
dated 14-9-2010 (P&H)] was assailed by the appellant by filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 489 of
2011. The High Court rejected the claim of the appellant, while dismissing the letters patent appeal
on 26-5-2011 [Shobha Ram Raturi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., 2011 SCC OnLine
P&H 17610] . The orders dated 14-9-2010 [Shobha Ram Raturi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., WP (C) No. 751 of 2003, order dated 14-9-2010 (P&H)] and 26-5-2011 [Shobha Ram
Raturi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., 2011 SCC OnLine P&H 17610] passed by the
High Court limited to the issue of payment of back wages, are the subject-matter of challenge
before this Court.

3. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the controversy, we are satisfied, that
after the impugned order of retirement dated 31-12-2002 was set aside, the appellant was entitled
to all consequential benefits. The fault lies with the respondents in not having utilised the services
of the appellant for the period from 1-1-2003 to 31-12-2005. Had the appellant been allowed to
continue in service, he would have readily discharged his duties. Having restrained him from
rendering his services with effect from 1-1-2003 to 31-12-2005, the respondent cannot be allowed
to press the self-serving plea of denying him wages for the period in question, on the plea of the
principle of "no work no pay"."
542 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(emphasis by Court)

15. This decision was followed by this Court in Prayag Narain Dubey (P.N. Dubey) v.
U.P.S.R.T.C. and another, 2018 (8) ADJ 561, which was upheld on appeal by the Division Bench
in U.P.S.R.T.C. and another v. Prayag Narain Dubey (P.N. Dubey), 2018 ADJOnline 0727.
The principle in all these cases is clear, and that is where the employee has remained out of service
on account of the unilateral act of the employer, which is subsequently found not valid and lawful,
the employer cannot refuse to pay him emoluments on the principle of 'no work no pay'.

16. I had occasion to consider the same issue in Rajesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and
others, 2023 SCC OnLine All 3097 relating to the same service governed by the same rules and a
similar denial of emoluments for the period that the petitioner in that case remained out of service
on account of cancellation of his appointment. In Rajesh Kumar Yadav (supra), I held:

"In the circumstances, to attribute the petitioner any blame for not performing his duties
between the period 14.09.2011 to 01.05.2017 would be patently arbitrary. But for the respondents'
decision to terminate his services on 14.09.2011 on a particular view about the essential
qualification that the petitioner ought to have possessed, the petitioner would have continued in
service and served the respondents. However, later on, when this Court sent the matter back to the
respondents to reconsider the issue, the respondents acknowledged their mistake and held that
cancellation of the petitioner's appointment, was for the reason indicated, not tenable. Therefore,
the petitioner remaining out of job or not rendering work cannot be made the basis of denying him
his emoluments for the period that he was forced to stay away It becomes all the more relevant in
this case because the respondents have acknowledged their mistake while reinstating the petitioner,
and, done so, without any limitation regarding the terms of reinstatement."

17. The respondents preferred Special Appeal (D) No.704 of 2024, State of U.P. and 2
others v. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, where the Division Bench upheld the order and dismissed the
appeal vide judgment and order dated 05.10.2023. The respondents further challenged the order of
the Division Bench by moving the Supreme Court praying for grant of Special Leave to Appeal
vide SLP (Civil) Diary No.4870 of 2024. The Special Leave Petition was summarily dismissed
vide order dated 12.02.2024.

18. Mr. Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel, however, resisted the
petitioners' claim and placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Management of
Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal, (1994) 1 SCC 541. Bhopal Singh
Panchal (supra) was a case relating to an employee of the Reserve Bank of India, who was arrested
on a criminal charge and placed under suspension under Regulation 46(1) of the Reserve Bank of
India (Staff) Regulations, 1948. He was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge for an offence
under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced to 8 years' R.I. Upon an appeal, the High Court
acquitted him, granting him the benefit of doubt. He was not reinstated in service by the Reserve
Bank of India, but upon raising an industrial dispute, the Industrial Tribunal passed an award
directing reinstatement in service with full wages and continuity, as if he had never been dismissed.
It was in the context of the aforesaid facts and Regulation 46 of the Regulations of 1948 that it was
held that in the circumstances, it could not be said that the employee was absent from duty on
2 All. Ram Swaroop Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
543
account of circumstances beyond his control. He had indulged in misconduct, of which he had not
been honourably acquitted. It was in those circumstances that Regulations 39, 46 and 47 were
interpreted to empower the Bank to deny salary on the principle of 'no work no pay' to the
employee concerned. This decision stands on the edifice of a completely different principle, which
is not even remotely attracted to the facts of the present case, as already indicated.

19. In the totality of circumstances, we are of opinion that the respondents cannot deny the
petitioners their arrears of salary for the different periods of time payable to petitioner Nos.1, 2 and
3, and the impugned order is manifestly illegal.

20. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.10.2024
passed by the Director, Training and Employment, U.P., Lucknow is hereby quashed. A
mandamus is issued to the Director, Training and Employment, U.P., Lucknow, the Principal,
Government Industrial Training Institute, Naini, Prayagraj and the Principal, Government Industrial
Training Institute, Karaundi, Varanasi, to ensure, amongst themselves, payment of arrears of salary
to petitioner No.1 for the period 19.01.2017 to 02.01.2020, petitioner No.2 for the period
01.01.2017 to 07.01.2020, and, petitioner No.3 for the period 01.01.2017 to 16.12.2019, within a
period of two months of receipt of a copy of this order.

21. There shall be no order as to costs.

22. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the Director, Training and Employment,
U.P., Lucknow, the Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Naini, Prayagraj and the
Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Karaundi, Varanasi by the Registrar
(Compliance).
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 543
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ A No. 27948 of 2010

Ram Swaroop Shukla ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Effect of non-compliance of principle of oral hearing by the Inquiry Officer, even in the absence of
provision on it in the Rules of 1999.

Headnotes