# Ram Pal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 610
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-05-24
- **Case number:** Service Single No.3802 of 2010
- **Bench:** Shabihul Hasnain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-pal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-42601
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226- Arrears of
salary-petitioner working beldar-illegally
retired- as per order of Tribunal-retirement
order set-a-side-reinstated in service after
consuming 6 yrs-worked till retirementheld-if willing to work but not allowed-to
work petitioner can not be guilty for
mistake of department-entitled for salary
for the period not allowed to work.

Held: Para-7
In
view
of
the
several
judgments
mentioned above the court is of the
considered view that the petitioner was
illegally retired. He was working with
unblemished career. He was willing to
work but was denied to perform duties
by the opposite parties-State. He was fit
to work is also clear by the fact that
when he was allowed to join after six
years he performed his duties till his age
of superannuation. He was deprived of
work and consequent salary because of
the
mistake
of
the
department.
Petitioner can not be held responsible for
the same. The petitioner deserves to get
the salary of the period claimed i.e. from
1.10.1988 to 18.5.1994 on the scale
which would have been applicable to him
had
he
been continued
in
service,
however, without any interest. It is
ordered accordingly.
Case Law discussed:
1994 HVD(Alld.) Vol. 1 85; L.C.D. 1996 (14)
360; (2003) 21 LCD 610; (2009) 2 Supreme
Court Cases 570

## Text

610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
help respondent no.2, in the case in hand, in
view of Specific provisions of Act 1972.

20. In the result, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order
dated 17th October 2005, passed by
Additional District Judge/Special Judge,
SC/ST Act, Jhansi, is set aside. The order
dated
19.11.2004,
passed
by
the
Execution Court is restored and affirmed.

21. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.05.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHABIHUL HASNAIN, J.

Service Single No.3802 of 2010

Ram Pal

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.B. Srivastava, Sri D.P. Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 226- Arrears of
salary-petitioner working beldar-illegally
retired- as per order of Tribunal-retirement
order set-a-side-reinstated in service after
consuming 6 yrs-worked till retirementheld-if willing to work but not allowed-to
work petitioner can not be guilty for
mistake of department-entitled for salary
for the period not allowed to work.

Held: Para-7
In
view
of
the
several
judgments
mentioned above the court is of the
considered view that the petitioner was
illegally retired. He was working with
unblemished career. He was willing to
work but was denied to perform duties
by the opposite parties-State. He was fit
to work is also clear by the fact that
when he was allowed to join after six
years he performed his duties till his age
of superannuation. He was deprived of
work and consequent salary because of
the
mistake
of
the
department.
Petitioner can not be held responsible for
the same. The petitioner deserves to get
the salary of the period claimed i.e. from
1.10.1988 to 18.5.1994 on the scale
which would have been applicable to him
had
he
been continued
in
service,
however, without any interest. It is
ordered accordingly.
Case Law discussed:
1994 HVD(Alld.) Vol. 1 85; L.C.D. 1996 (14)
360; (2003) 21 LCD 610; (2009) 2 Supreme
Court Cases 570

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.B. Srivastava learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.

2. Petitioner has prayed for a writ in
the nature of certiorari quashing the letter
no.
74/Camp./ST-M-8/1998
dated
3.11.1998, as contained in Annexure no. 7
to the writ petition.

3. The claim of the petitioner for
arrears of salary for the period he has not
worked has been rejected by this order. It
is necessary for the proper adjudication of
the case that some facts may be narrated.

4. The petitioner was appointed as
'Beldar' under the Executive Engineer,
Provincial Division, Lok Nirman Vibhag,
Fatehpur in the year 1968. Petitioner is an
illiterate person. He has submitted that
when his service book was prepared in
1972 his case was referred to the medical
authority for verification of his date of
birth. Petitioner says that his age was
verified as 16.9.1938 but somehow it was
entered in the service book as 16.9.1928.
Therefore, the petitioner who-2- ought to
2 All] Ram Pal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
611
have been retired on 30.9.1998 was
retired on 30.9.1988 after attaining the
age of 60 years.

When the petitioner was retired he
realized that he has been retired ten years
earlier than his actual date of retirement.
Petitioner field a Claim Petition No.
442/F/IV/90 ( Ram Pal vs. State of U.P. &
others) before the U.P. Public Services
Tribunal which was finally decided on
12.4.1994 in favour of the petitioner The
order passed by the tribunal is being
quoted herein below:

";kfpdk Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA izfri{k dks
;g funsZ'k fn;s tkrs gS fd 1938 dks ;kph dh
tUefrfFk ekurs gq, muds lsokfuo`fRr ij fopkj
djsaA vkSj 1928 ds vk/kkj ij lsokfuo`fRr ds vkns'k
lekIr fd;s tkrs gSA mHk; i{k viuk&viuk okn
O;; Lo;a ogu djsaxsA"

6. In compliance of the tribunal's
order dated 12.4.1994 the petitioner was
allowed to join his duties on 19.5.1994.
Petitioner made a claim for payment of
salary for the intervening period i.e. from
1.10.1988 to 18.5.1994.
Initially the
opposite parties were of the view that the
payment for intervening period should be
made to the petitioner but later on they took
u-turn and did not make the payment. State
also filed writ petition no. 2237(S/S) of
1997 ( State vs. Ram Pal) by the State of
U.P. against the order of tribunal was
rejected by the High Court. The petitioner
ultimately retired on 30.9.1998. The crucial
question engaging the attention of this court
in this writ petition is whether a person who
has not worked during the period he was not
in service will be entitled for salary of that
period or not. In the present case the
petitioner was illegally retired in the year
30.9.1998. He went into litigation and was
finally reinstated on 19.5.1994 in pursuance
of the tribunal's order. He successfully
worked till the age of superannuation and
finally retired in the year 1998. Petitioner
claims that since he was illegally removed
from service and he was willing to work,
hence he should be given the salary of the
said period in which he was not allowed to
work and earn wages for his family by the
illegal act / mistake of the department.
Petitioner
has
relied
upon
following
judgments :

i. 1994 HVD (Alld.) Vol. 1 85 (
Gulab Chandra Srivastava vs. State of
U.P. & others).

"4. It is clear from perusal of the
affidavits filed by the parties that neither the
petitioner's appointment was challenged nor
was he a party in those petitions and further
that his appointment order as A.D.G.C. has
not been set aside so far by any Court. That
apart, even the Government has not
cancelled his appointment. Explanation
offered in the counter affidavit to the effect
that in view of judgment in the aforesaid
writ petitions the petitioner was not
permitted ot work, is unsustainable. When
his appointment has neither been set aside
nor cancelled by the court or Government it
was incumbent on the respondents to permit
him to work. But as the period for which the
petitioner was appointed has come to an end
on 30.11.1993 no direction can be given to
the respondents to permit him to work as
A.D.G.C. But he is entitled to get amount of
retainer-ship at the prescribed rate. When
employee is willing to work but he is not
permitted to do so by the employer without
any fault on the part of the employee is
entitled to to the payment of salary by the
employer and the principle of 'nowork no
pay' does not apply to such a case. This
principle is fully applicable to the instant
case. The respondents, as such, should pay
612 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
to the petitioner retainer-ship at the
prescribed rate."

ii. L.C.D. 1996 (14) 360 ( Ajab Singh
vs. U.P. State Public Services Tribunal.

"No counter affidavit has been filed
till today, i.e. 9.1.1996. In my view, it is
settled law that if the termination order is
set aside by a court of law, the employee
is entitled for the salary and allowances
for the intervening period. In the present
case, termination order of the petitioner
has been set aside by State Public
Services Tribunal by itws judgment and
order dated 16.12.1993. It has been held
by the Tribunal that :-

"...It is clear from the record that no
show cause notice was given to the petitoner
nor any opportunity was given to explain his
position. In these circumstances, it is clear
that the order of cessation of services of the
petitioner was wholly illegal and is not
sustainable in the eyes of law.

The petitioner is not in service since
1980. He shall be deemed to be in
continuous service as the order of
cessation of service is liable to be
quashed."

iii. (2003) 21 LCD 610 ( Radhey
Kant Khare vs. U.P. Coop. Sugar
Factories Federation Ltd.

"In our opinion the appellant was not
given proper opportunity of hearing and
no oral enquiry as required by law was
held. Hence, the dismissal order dated
26.7.1985 is wholly illegal and is hereby
quashed. The judgment of the learned
Single Judge dated 11.10.1999 is also set
aside. The petition is allowed. The
petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith.
The normal rule is that when the dismissal
order is set aside reinstatement with full
back wages has to be granted vide
Kesoram Cotton Mills v. Gangadhar 1963
II LLJ 371 (SC), M.L. Bose v. Its
Employees AIR 1961 SC 1178 etc. We
direct
that
the
petitioner
shall
be
reinstated within a month of production of
a certified copy of this order before the
authority concerned, and he must be given
full back wages from 26.7.1985 i.e. the
date of dismissal to the date of
reinstatement in two months from today
along with interest at 10% per annum."

iv.(2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 689
( Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board
v. C. Muddaiah. "34. We are conscious and
mindful that even in absence of statutory
provision, normal rule is "no work no pay".
In appropriate cases, however, a court of
law may , nay must, take into account all
the facts in their entirely and pass an
appropriate order in consonance with law.
The court, in a given case, may hold that the
person was willing to work but was illegally
and unlawfully not allowed to do so. The
court may in the circumstances, direct the
authority
to
grant
him
all
benefits
considering " as if he had worked". It,
therefore, can not be contended as an
absolute proposition of law that no direction
of payment of consequential benefits can be
granted by a court of law and if such
directions are issued by a court, the
authority can ignore them even if they had
been finally confirmed by the Apex Court
of the country ( as has been done in the
present case). The bald contention of the
appellant Board, therefore, has no substance
and must be rejected."

v. (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases
570 (Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab
National
Bank
&
others).
2 All] Rakesh Dhar Tripathi Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
613

"24. For the aforementioned reasons,
the judgment of thee High Court is set
aside. The appeal is allowed with costs
and the appellant is directed to be
reinstated with full back wages. Counsel's
fee assessed at Rs. 25,000/-."

7. In view of the several judgments
mentioned above the court is of the
considered view that the petitioner was
illegally retired. He was working with
unblemished career. He was willing to
work but was denied to perform duties by
the opposite parties-State. He was fit to
work is also clear by the fact that when he
was allowed to join after six years he
performed his duties till his age of
superannuation. He was deprived of work
and consequent salary because of the
mistake of the department. Petitioner can
not be held responsible for the same. The
petitioner deserves to get the salary of the
period claimed i.e. from 1.10.1988 to
18.5.1994 on the scale which would have
been applicable to him had he been
continued in service, however, without
any interest. It is ordered accordingly.

8. Writ Petition is allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.02.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5037 Of 2012

Rakesh Dhar Tripathi ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Umesh Narain Sharma
Sri Shashi Nandan, Sri Vishnu Gupta
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 226- Petition
for 'Y' category security-petitioner happend
to be minister for higher education, P.W.D.
minister,
apart
from
several
political
activities-earlier
provided
'Y'
securitywithdraw by state government-argument
that
before
withdrawing
'Y'
security
opportunity
of
hearing
must-heldmisconceived-on threat of life two guards
and one shadow already provided-family
members possess so many fire arms
license-state meant for protection of all
cirizen-'Y' security having financial burden
of Rs. two lacs per month on public
exchequer can not be imposed-petition
dismissed.

Held: Para-12
We do not find any substance in the
contention of the counsel for the petitioner
that a person who has been given 'Y' class
security must be given an opportunity of
hearing before it was withdrawn, or that
before taking decision to withdraw the 'Y'
class security, the threat perception should
be assessed by the State Government.
Ordinarily every citizen, is entitled to
security, and for that purpose entire
security set up is established. Special
security is given on the threat perception
assessed by a high level committee on the
reports submitted by the concerned police
authorities.
The
petitioner
was
not
provided 'Y' class security cover, on
assessment of any such threat perception.

Case Law discussed:
2008 (1) ADJ 575 (DB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. We have heard Sri Shashi Nandan,
Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vishnu
Gupta for the petitioner. Sri V.K. Singh,
Additional Advocate General assisted by
learned standing counsel appears for the State
respondents.