# Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industrial Corp

- **Citation:** Service Bench No. 1510 of 2003
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-04-09
- **Case number:** Service Bench No. 1510 of 2003
- **Bench:** Devi Prasad Singh, Arvind Kumar Tripathi (Ii
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/radhey-shyam-gupta-v-u-p-state-agro-industrial-corp-42939
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A-Constitution Of India, Art.-226-Continuity
of Service- Termination order-found illegalquashed-confined by Apex Court-whether
entitled for continuity of Service?-held-'Yes'

Held: Para-37
We further of the view that petitioner is
entitled for continuity of service because
of the fact that order of termination was
declared void by the tribunal which was
restored by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Once the order of termination was
quashed
by
the
courts
then
the
employee shall deemed to be in service
with all consequential benefits.

B- Constitution Of India, Art.-226- Back
wages-termination order found illegalperiod in litigation consumed about 22
years-salary
denied
in
absence
of
certificate no gainful working during
these
periods
given-held-full
salary
w.e.f. the date of judgment apart from
Rs. 1 Lacs towards back wages given.

Held: Para-36
In view of above, so far as payment of
wages are concerned, we are of the view
that the petitioner is entitled for full
salary immediately after pronouncement
508 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
of judgment of U.P. Public Services
Tribunal i.e. from 31.12.1980 with all
consequential
benefits.
So
far
as
backwages are concerned, we direct the
respondents to pay lump-sum amount of
Rs.
1,00000/-(one
lacs)
in
lieu
of
backwages for the reason that petitioner
had
already
attained
the
age
of
superannuation and fresh proceeding
under financial handbook (Rule 54 (4)
Part II to IV will further cause mental
pain and agony to the petitioner.

Case Law discussed:
1999(2) SCC 21; 2012(12) SCALE 593;
1999(3) SCC 60; 1991 (2) CAT 61; 1998 SC
344; AIR 1984 SC 1829; 2005(106) FLR 607;
2007 (113) FLR 831; 2005 (104) FLR 863;
2006(109) FLR 159; 2006 (109)FLR 156; 2006
(108) FLR 201; AIR 1955 SC 123; AIR 1994
ALL 298; 2003 (8) SCC 559; 1988 (4) SCC
284; 2011(7) SCC 639

## Text

1 All Shyam Nath Chaubey Vs. State of U.P. & Others
507
document on record so the impugned
order of transfer is in contravention to the
Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 21 of Rules, 2009
because State is a model employer and it
is required to act fairly giving due regard
and respect to the rules framed by it. But
in the present case, the State has atrophied
the rules.

20. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Balram Gupta v. Union of India
1987 Supp SCC 228 has observed as
under:-

"........ As a model employer the
Government must conduct itself with high
proity and candour with its employees."

21. In State of Haryana v. Piara
Singh (1992) 4 SCC 118, Hon'ble the
Apex Court held that the main concern of
the Court in such matters is to ensure the
rule of law and to see that the Executive
acts fairly and gives a fair deal to its
employees
consistent
with
the
requirements of Articles 14 and 16.
44 22. For the foregoing reasons, the
impugned order of transfer as well as
relieving dated 5.3.2013 (Annexure Nos.1
and
2)
passed
by
opposite
party
no.2/Superintendent of Police Railway,
Lucknow and opposite party no.3/Reserve
Sub-Inspector, G.R.P. Lines, Lucknow
respectively are set aside and the opposite
party
no.2/Superintendent
of
Police
Railway, Lucknow is directed to allow the
petitioner to work and discharge his duties
on the post of orderly peon at G.R.P.,
Lucknow

23. In the result, the writ petition is
allowed.

24. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.04.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI
(II), J.

Service Bench No. 1510 of 2003

Radhey Shyam Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. State Agro Industrial Corp

 ..Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rakesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Manoj K Singh, Sri S. Mirza

A-Constitution Of India, Art.-226-Continuity
of Service- Termination order-found illegalquashed-confined by Apex Court-whether
entitled for continuity of Service?-held-'Yes'

Held: Para-37
We further of the view that petitioner is
entitled for continuity of service because
of the fact that order of termination was
declared void by the tribunal which was
restored by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Once the order of termination was
quashed
by
the
courts
then
the
employee shall deemed to be in service
with all consequential benefits.

B- Constitution Of India, Art.-226- Back
wages-termination order found illegalperiod in litigation consumed about 22
years-salary
denied
in
absence
of
certificate no gainful working during
these
periods
given-held-full
salary
w.e.f. the date of judgment apart from
Rs. 1 Lacs towards back wages given.

Held: Para-36
In view of above, so far as payment of
wages are concerned, we are of the view
that the petitioner is entitled for full
salary immediately after pronouncement
508 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
of judgment of U.P. Public Services
Tribunal i.e. from 31.12.1980 with all
consequential
benefits.
So
far
as
backwages are concerned, we direct the
respondents to pay lump-sum amount of
Rs.
1,00000/-(one
lacs)
in
lieu
of
backwages for the reason that petitioner
had
already
attained
the
age
of
superannuation and fresh proceeding
under financial handbook (Rule 54 (4)
Part II to IV will further cause mental
pain and agony to the petitioner.

Case Law discussed:
1999(2) SCC 21; 2012(12) SCALE 593;
1999(3) SCC 60; 1991 (2) CAT 61; 1998 SC
344; AIR 1984 SC 1829; 2005(106) FLR 607;
2007 (113) FLR 831; 2005 (104) FLR 863;
2006(109) FLR 159; 2006 (109)FLR 156; 2006
(108) FLR 201; AIR 1955 SC 123; AIR 1994
ALL 298; 2003 (8) SCC 559; 1988 (4) SCC
284; 2011(7) SCC 639

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.)

1. Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shafiq
Mirza learned counsel for the respondents
and perused the record.

2. U.P. State Agro Industrial
Corporation Limited is a corporation
constituted under the Companies Act and
is a government company and admittedly
instrumentality of State in terms of Article
12 of the Constitution of India. The
petitioner was appointed in the year 1970
on the post of Accountant and on
20.7.1970 thereafter on the post of Branch
Manager in the respondent corporation.
His services were terminated by an order
dated 23.1.1976. Feeling aggrieved with
the impugned order of termination,
petitioner filed a regular suit no. 29 of
1976 in the court of Civil Judge Lucknow.
Later on after constitution of U.P. State
Public
Service
Tribunal
(hereinafter
referred as Tribunal) the said case was
transferred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal
after considering the pleading on record
with due opportunity to the parties to lead
the evidence arrived to the conclusion that
order suffers from vice of arbitrariness
and declared the order void and illegal.
Operative portion of the order dated
31.12.1980 passed by the tribunal is
reproduced as under:-

"In view of the above discussions we
are of the view that the termination order
was passed by way of punishment and
since the claimant had not been given any
opportunity, the principles of natural
justice were contravened. At the sametime
the malafides against Sri R.P.Singh have
been established.

In view of the above findings we set
aside the termination order and declare
that the said order is void and illegal. It
will however be open to the O.Ps. to
initiate an enquiry if they so desire
against the claimant and thereafter deal
with his case as permissible under law."

3. Feeling aggrieved with the
impugned order passed by the Tribunal
the respondent corporation had preferred
a Writ Petition No. 1591 of 1981 in this
court. The writ petition was heard by a
Division Bench and allowed it by the
judgement and order dated 10.12.1997, a
copy of which has been annexed as
Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The
Division Bench had set aside the tribunal's
order with the finding that the impugned
order of termination does not suffer from
any impropriety or illegality nor it is
violative of Article 311 (2) of the
Constitution of India.

4. Feeling aggrieved with the
aforesaid
judgement,
petitioner
had
preferred Special Leave Petition in the
1 All Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. U.P. State Agro Industrial Corp.
509
Hon'ble Supreme Court and leave was
granted by their Lordship. The appeal was
registered as Civil Appeal No. 6344 of
1998 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. U.P. State
Agro Industrial corporation.

5.

After
considering
rival
submissions and pleadings on record,
Hon'ble Supreme Court had allowed the
appeal and restored the order passed by
the Tribunal with the finding that order of
termination was punitive in nature and
could not have been passed. The case has
also been reported in 1999 (2) SCC 21
Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. U.P. State
Agro Industries Corporation Limited
and another.

6. It appears that respondent
corporation being not satisfied with the
order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in appeal again preferred a review
petition. That too was dismissed by an
oder dated 3.2.1999. Before dismissal of
review
petition
the
petitioner
had
submitted
a
joining
report
dated
18.12.1998. In the meantime, review
petition
was
dismissed
by
Hon'ble
Supreme Court by an order dated
3.2.1999. The order passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the review petition, a
copy of which has been filed as
Annexure-5 to the writ petition is
reproduced as under:-

"We have carefully gone through the
review petition and the connected papers.
We see no merit int he review petition and
the same is accordingly dismissed."

7. According to petitioner's counsel
in spite of the fact that the judgement of
the tribunal attained finality up to Hon'ble
Supreme Court respondents had not
granted arrears of salary and other post
retiral dues. The submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner Shri
Rakesh Kumar is that after dismissal of
appeal by Hon'ble Supreme Court it was
incumbent
upon
the
respondents
corporation to pay the arrears of salary
and other service benefit since, no fresh
enquiry was instituted by the opposite
party.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon the cases reported in 2012
(12) SCALE 593, Pradip Kumar Vs.
Union of India and others; Dipti
Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satvendra Nath
Bose
National
Centre
for
Basic
Sciences, Calcutta and others, 1999 (3)
SCC 60; G. Chokkan and others Vs.
The
Assistant
Engineer
Coaxial
Maintenance
ERODE
and
others
(Madras), 1991 (2) CAT 61 (AISLJ);
Union of India and Another Vs. Sri
Babu Ram Lalla, AIR 1988 SC 344;
S.M.Saiyad
Vs.
Baroda
Municipal
Corporation, AIR 1984 SC 1829 and
A.L.Kalra
Vs.
The
Project
and
Equipment Corporation of India Ltd.

9. On the other hand, Shri Shafiq
Mirza learned counsel for the respondent
corporation submits that the petitioner is
not entitled for payment of arrears of
salary and other service benefits since he
does not fulfill requisite conditions and
also had not discharged duty.

10. Shri Shafiq Mirza has relied
upon the cases reported in 2005 (106)
FLR 607, General Manager, Haryana
Roadways and Rudhan Singh; 2007
(113)
FLR
831,
Haryana
Urban
Development Authority Vs. Om Pal;
2005
(104)
FLR
863,
Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan and another;2006
(109) FLR 159, Kunwar Heresh Saran
510 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
Saxena and State of u.P. and another;
2006 (109) FLR 156, State of M.P. and
others and Arjunlal Rajak; 2006(108)
FLR
201,
U.P.
State
Brassware
Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Udai
Narain Pandey.

11. So far as factual matrix of the
case is concerned it has not been disputed
by the parties' that the order of
termination was set aside and declared as
null and void (supra). Accordingly,
petitioner is entitled for all retiral benefits
including arreas of salary. Petitioner,
while approaching this Court, has claimed
following reliefs:-

"A. A writ, order or direction in the
nature of Mandamus commanding the
opposite party to pay full back wages iwth
all consequential benefits by calculating
the revised pay scale and the increments
accruing thereon to the petitioner from
the date of termination till date of
retirement.

B. To issue a Writ, order or direction
in the nature of Mandamus to grant
retiral benefits such as Employees'
Provident Fund, Insurance, pension etc.

C.Any other writ, direction or order
as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case.

D. To award costs of the writ petition
in favour of the petitioner."

12. Shri Shafiq Mirza learned
counsel for the respondent corporation
has opposed the relief claimed by the
petitioner and submits that he is not
entitled for any backwages on the
principle of "no work no pay".

He submits that there is no evidence
that petitioner is not in a gainful
employment. He further submits that
payment of post retiral dues was rejected
by an order dated 3.7.1999. He further
submits that backwages may not be
allowed in a mechanical way.

13. So far as argument advanced by
Shri Shafiq Mirza that the petitioner has
not
submitted
any
representation
indicating therein that he is not in a
gainful
employment
is
concerned,
attention has been invited towards a
representation dated 30.1.1999, a copy of
which has been filed as Annexure-7 to the
writ
petition
which
indicates
that
petitioner has made a statement that for
the period of almost 23 years he suffered
mental pain and agony as well as financial
hardship on account of non employment
and pendency of matter before the
different courts. In Para 12 to the writ
petition there is specific pleading with
regard to representation dated 30.1.1999.
In response to para 12 to the writ petition,
it has been stated in the counter affidavit
that it has been rejected.

14. However, fact remains that while
submitting representation the petitioner
has stated that for 23 years he had
suffered unemployment, mental pain and
agony. Once the petitioner has come
forward with a specific case that he is not
in a gainful employment and he suffered
mental pain and agony then it was
incumbent to record finding with regard
to gainful employment. Nothing has been
brought on record while filling counter
affidavit that the petitioner was in job or
in gainful employment. No notice was
served on the petitioner to furnish
material or lead evidence with regard to
his unemployment.

15. In view of above, inference may
be drawn that petitioner was not in a
1 All Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. U.P. State Agro Industrial Corp.
511
gainful employment for the period of 23
years.

16. Now coming to the second limb
of the argument with regard to arrears of
salary and other post retiral dues. A plain
reading of the judgement and order passed
by the tribunal reveals that the order of
termination was declared void and illegal.
However, Tribunal had not granted any
order with regard to payment of salary.
Fact remains, in case, order is declared
void abinitio means no order is in
existence and petitioner shall deem to be
continue in service. A person who deem
to be in service shall entitled for payment
of salary with immediate effect i.e. from
10.12.1997 the date when tribunal had
pronounced the judgement and which has
been affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

17. Once the order of termination
was declared null and void then not only
petitioner shall deem to be in service but
it shall amount to continuity in service
from the date of initial appointment and
the all service benefits including the post
retiral dues to be calculated treating the
petitioner in service.

18. In Blacks Law Dictionary, Ninth
Edition by Bryan A. Garner, the word
void has been defined as under:-

"Void of no legal effect; null. The
distinction between void and voidable is
often of great practical importance.
Whenever technical accuracy is required,
void can be properly applied only to those
provisions
that
are
of
no
effect
whatsoever-Those that are an absolute
nullity."

19. In The Law Lexicon by P
Ramanatha Aiyar, 2nd Edition the word
void has been defined as under:-

"Void. No valid, of no effect;
invalidate.

Null; ineffectual; having no legal
force or binding effect; incapable of being
enforced by law

A thing which is void is "non-est"
and it is not necessary that it be set aside
though it may be sometimes convenient to
do so

Void and not being valid. There is no
real difference between transfer being
void or not being valid. Sanction obtained
from the charity commission subsequent
to the sale transaction is not valid."

20. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case
reported in AIR 1955 SC 123, Behram
Khurshid
Pesikaka
Vs.
State
of
Bombay, held that word void used in
Article 31 of the Constitution of India
does not mean that existing law shall
obliterated from the statute book since it
has not been given any retrospective
effect. After the coming into force of the
Constitution the effect of Article 13(1) on
such repugnant laws is that it nullifies
them and makes them ineffectual and
nugatory and devoid of any legal force or
binding effect.

21. Full Bench of Allahabad High
Court in AIR 1994 All 298, Nutan
Kumar Vs. II Additional District Judge
Band while interpreting the expression
"void" in relation to a juristic act held that
it means without legal force, effect or
consequence; not binding; invalid; null;
512 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
worthless; cipher; useless; and ineffectual.
Accordingly,
since
the
order
of
termination has been declared void it
become ineffectual, worthless, in valid
and nonest, deemed to be extinguished
from petitioner's service career with
continuity of service for all practical
purposes.

22. The case of Pradip Kumar
(supra) relied upon by the petitioner's
counsel relates to the services of the
employee concerned who was working as
probationer. Their Lordship of Hon'ble
Supreme Court had directed to restore his
services with all backwages.

23. The case of Dipti Prakash
Banerjee (supra) relates to termination of
services. The order of termination was set
aside on the ground that it is punitive in
nature.
Their
Lordship
of
Hon'ble
Supreme Court while allowing the appeal
against the order passed by the High
Court held that since there is no evidence
with regard to gainful employment the
appellants shall be entitled for backwages.
Relevant portion from the judgement of
Dipti
Prakash
Banerjee
(supra)
is
reproduced as under:-

"para46.

Learned senior counsel for the
respondent submitted on the basis of State
of Haryana v. Jagdish Chander that
merely because an order of termination
was set aside on grounds of lack of
opportunity, it was not necessary to direct
reinstatement and back wages. Reliance in
Jagdish Chandra's case was placed upon
Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar
. It is true that such an order not granting
reinstatement or back wages was passed
in Jagdish Chander's case following
Karunakar's case. But it has to be noticed
that in Karunakar case, there was a
regular departmental inquiry but the
inquiry report was not given to the officer.
This Court directed the report to be given
and set aside the proceedings from that
stage and stated that no order for
reinstatement or backwages need be
passed at that stage. But in cases like the
present where no departmental inquiry
whatsoever was held, Karunakar case, in
our view, cannot be an authority. As to
backwages, on facts, the position in the
present case is that there is no material to
say that the appellant has been gainfully
employed. The appellant is, therefore,
entitled to reinstatement and backwages
till the date of reinstatement from the date
of termination and to continuity of
service. Point 4 is decided accordingly".

24. The case of Union of India
(supra) also relates to a situation where
their Lordship had granted the backwages.

25. In the case of S.M.Saiyad
(supra) while allowing the appeal Hon'ble
Supreme Court had set aside the order of
High Court directing for payment of
backwages
after
deducting
certain
amount. Relevant portion from the
judgement of S.M.Saiyad (supra) is
reproduced as under:-

"Para 8 We, accordingly, allow this
appeal and set aside the decision of the
High Court refusing the back wages for
the period December 12, 1969 to October
26, 1976 and directed that the appellant
shall be entitled to back wages including
salary and allowances and other benefits
to which would be entitled as if he had
continued the service. While making the
payment of back wages as per this order
the respondent is entitled to deduct the
amount of Rs. 150/- p.m. from January
1 All Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. U.P. State Agro Industrial Corp.
513
20, 1973 to October 26, 1976 from the
amount which becomes payable to the
appellant. The respondent must compute
the amount payable as herein directed
and pay what becomes payable, to the
appellant within a period of two months
from today.

26. In the case of A.L.Kalra (supra)
also the controversy before Hon'ble
Supreme Court with regard to punishment
awarded on account of misconduct in the
form of dismissal from service was in
question. The appeal was allowed with
the finding that every arbitrary executive
action affecting public employment is
violative of Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. Hon'ble Supreme
Court restored the services of appellant
with continuity of service. It is further
held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that once
order of termination is held to be bad, no
other punishment in the guise of denial of
backwages can be imposed. Relevant
portion from the judgement of A.L.Kalra
(supra) is reproduced as under:-

"Para 32 and 33

32. The last question then is to what
relief the appellant is entitled ? Once the
order of removal from service is held to
be illegal and invalid and the appellant
being
in
public
employment,
the
necessary declaration must follow that he
continues to be in service uninterruptedly.
This aspect does not present any difficult
and the declaration is hereby granted.

33. When removal from service is
held to be illegal and invalid, the next
question is whether : the victim of such
action
is
entitled
to
backwagcs.
Ordinalily, it is well-settled that if
termination of service is held to be bad,
no other punishment in the guise of denial
of back wages can be imposed and
therefore, it must as a necessary corollary
follow that he will be entitled to all the
back wages on the footing that he has
continued to be in service uninterruptedly.
But it was pointed out in this case that the
appellant was employed as Factory
Manager by M/s. KDR Woollen Mills, A90, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi from
where he resigned with effect from
August 8, 1983. It was also submitted that
he was drawing a salary of Rs. 2500 per
month. Now if the appellant had procured
an alternative employment, he would not
be entitled to wages and salary from the
respondent. But it is equally true that an
employee depending on salary for his
survival when he is exposed to the
vagaries of the court litigation cannot hold
on to a slender distant hope of judicial
process coming to his rescue and not try
to survive by accepting an alternative
employment, a hope which may turn out
to be a mirage. Therefore, the appellant
was perfectly justified in procuring an
alternative employment in order to keep
his body and soul together as also to bear
the expenses of litigation to vindicate his
honour, integrity and character".

27. On the other hand, the cases
relied upon Shri Shafiq Mirza learned
counsel for the respondent corporation
speak otherwise. In the case of General
Manager, Haryana Roadways (supra)
under para 10,11 and 12, their Lordship of
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when
work is not done remuneration may not to
be paid with the finding that employees
shall not be entitled for payment of
backwages. Their Lordship has granted 50
per cent of backwages to the employees
concerned.
514 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

28. In the case of Haryana Urban
Development Authority (supra) in lieu
of backwages the lump sum amount of 25
per cent backwages by Hon'ble Supreme
Court.

29. In the case of Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan (supra) also where
allegation with regard to absconding from
services no backwages were granted.
Relevant portion from the judgement of
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (supra) is
reproduced as under:-

"para
15
Applying
the
above
principle, the inevitable conclusion is that
the respondent was not entitled to full
back wages which according to the High
Court was natural consequence. That part
of the High Court order is set aside. When
the
question
of
determining
the
entitlement of a person to back wages is
concerned, the employee has to show that
he was not gainfully employed. The initial
burden is on him. After and if he places
materials in that regard, the employer can
bring on record materials to rebut the
claim. In the instant case, the respondent
had neither pleaded nor placed any
material in that regard.

30. In the case of State of M.P. Vs.
Arjunlal Rajak (supra) it has been held
by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the
payment of backwages should not be
mechanical one and industrial court
should apply mind while taking a decision
with regard to backwages.

31. Similar proposition has been
reiterated in the case of Udai Narain
Pandey (supra) by Hon'ble Supreme
Court. In the case of Udai Narain Pandey
(supra), their Lordship had granted 25 per
cent of the total backwages.

32. Keeping in view the different
pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme
Court law emerges that for payment of
backwages there can not be strait-jacket
formula. All shall depend upon the facts
and circumstances of the each case and
court may exercise jurisdiction while
passing the order for payment of
backwages.

33. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we are of the view that
question with regard to payment of
backwages and wages from the date of
pronouncement of judgement may be
considered by this Court. Petitioner
suffered on account of pendency of
litigation right from tribunal to Hon'ble
Supreme Court.

34. It is well settled proposition of
law that no one should put to suffer
because of pendency of litigation in the
part of courts vide Bharat Damodar Kale
Vs. State of A.P., 2003 (8) SCC 559;
Atma Ram Mittal Vs. Ishwar Singh Punia,
1988 (4) SCC 284; Narmada Bachao
Andolan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
and another, 2011 (7) SCC 639 and State
of Rajasthan and others Vs. Khandaka
Jain Jwellers. The order passed by the
Tribunal set aside by the High Court and
was restored by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Accordingly, petitioner cannot be put to
suffer only because of the pendency of
litigation.

35. Even after pronouncement of
judgement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the year 1997 the petitioner has
suffered with mental pain and agony and
financial hardship and respondents had
declined to pay the wages and get the
1 All Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. U.P. State Agro Industrial Corp.
515
matter pending on unfounded ground by
taking dilatory tactics.

36. In view of above, so far as
payment of wages are concerned, we are
of the view that the petitioner is entitled
for
full
salary
immediately
after
pronouncement of judgement of U.P.
Public
Services
Tribunal
i.e.
from
31.12.1980
with
all
consequential
benefits. So far as backwages are
concerned, we direct the respondents to
pay lump-sum amount of Rs. 1,00000/-
(one lacs) in lieu of backwages for the
reason that petitioner had already attained
the age of superannuation and fresh
proceeding under financial handbook
(Rule 54 (4) Part II to IV will further
cause mental pain and agony to the
petitioner.

37. We further of the view that
petitioner is entitled for continuity of
service because of the fact that order of
termination was declared void by the
tribunal which was restored by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Once the order of
termination was quashed by the courts
then the employee shall deemed to be in
service with all consequential benefits.

38. In view of above, writ petition is
allowed. A writ in the nature of
mandamus is issued commanding the
respondents to pay backwages to the tune
of Rs. 1,00000/-(one lacs) expeditiously,
say within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this order.

39. Respondents are further directed
to pay arrears of full salary immediately
after the date of pronouncement of
judgement, by the tribunal i.e. from
31.12.1980 along with interest @ 8 per
cent till the age of superannuation after
deducting whatever amount has already
been paid.

40. A writ in the nature of
mandamus is further issued directing the
respondents subject to above to pay all
other consequential benefits available to
the petitioner in accordance to rules
considering the petitioner's continuity in
service from the date of appointment.

41. Let the order be complied with
by the respondents within three months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this order.

42. Writ petition is allowed
accordingly.

43. Let a certified copy of this order
be provided to the parties' counsel on
payment of usual charges within a week.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.04.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA, J.

Writ Petition No. 1537(MS) of 2010

Housing
Development
Finance
Corporation Ltd.

 Petitioner
Versus
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum(I)
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shakti Ojha

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.