High Court · 2007

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was selected and appointed on the post of constable vide order dated 26.6.2005 and was allowed to work, thereafter, on 27.8.2007 his appointment letter was cancelled, which was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.25313 (S/S) of 2018 and the same was allowed after exchange of affidavits.

3. The order dated 7.8.2019 passed by the Court in Writ Petition No.25313 (S/S) of 2018 reads as under :- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the respondents-State and also perused the record. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing of the order dated 27.08.2007 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich by which the petitioners have been found unfit for the service on the ground that they were suffering colour blindness and appointment has been cancelled. The submission is that the petitioners were selected and were given appointment by means of the order dated 26.06.2005. They were posted at the Police Line, Bahraich. Thereafter, on 27.08.2007, the petitioners were subjected to medical test, wherein they were found suffering from colour blindness and by means of the impugned order, the selection of the petitioners was terminated merely on the ground of colour blindness. It is this order, which has been assailed by Learned counsel for the petitioners has brought on record and drawn the attention of the Court to a decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pramod Prasad and another vs. State of U.P. & Others, passed in the petitioners. 2 Special Appeal No.59 of 2015, wherein the case of similarly situated persons as that of petitioner was considered and the Hon'ble Division Bench considering the entire facts of the matter found that the removal of the said appellants in the special appeal was absolutely unjustified and it set aside the order and the appellate Court in the special appeal also allowed the writ petition by means of its order dated 15.05.2019. The aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench was also considered in another case of Awadhesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Ors., in Writ - A No.5399 of 2017, wherein similarly situated persons have been granted the benefit of the aforesaid judgment. The relevant portion of the judgment in the case of Pramod Prasad (supra) is being reproduced for convenient perusal:- "8. At the threshold, we would like to state that appointment was accorded to the appellants petitioners as constable as a consequence of regular selection and therefore, they were working with the respondent in substantive capacity. From perusal of the order dated 20th August 2007, it is apparent that it is not a case of cancellation of the order of appointment, but removal from service. Though the order is labelled as an order terminating the petitioners from service in simplicitor manner but, it certainly has evil consequence. In the order term used is "removal from service". In view of it, we are of the considered opinion that the respondents should have conducted an enquiry in the matter as required under the relevant Discipline and Appeal Rules before removing him from service. The view taken by us is further fortified by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of U.P. Vs Ali Mohd (Special Appeal (Defective) No 507 of 2013 decided on 12th Sept 2013 (supra). 6.The issue even on merits, requires consideration. As stated above, as per Appendix E of the Rules 1942, inability to distinguish the principal colours is not a cause for rejection but, the fact is required to be noted in the proceeding and necessary information in that regard should be given to the candidate concerned. It would also be appropriate to state that the provision aforesaid is not relating to inability to hold a post after employment, but a criteria that is to be kept in mind at the time of recruitment. In the case in hand, that criteria must have been kept in mind while recruiting the petitioners and the ailment, if was existing at the time of recruitment then that must have been noticed by the Medical Board. Nothing has been stated by the respondents in their counter affidavit in this regard and admittedly,no information was also given to the appellants. 3 The presumption hence is that at the time of recruitment the appellant petitioners were not suffering from colour blindness, otherwise a note in that regard must have been made in the proceeding and information too had been given. It is further relevant to notice that if the appellants petitioners had been suffering from serious abnormality of vision, then at the time of recruitment, the respondents must have availed opinion of an Opthalmic Specialist as required under clause (G) of the standards settled in Appendix E. No formalities as noticed above were conducted. 9. In view of the fact that there is no material available on record to establish that the appellants petitioners were suffering from any vision impediment at the time of recruitment, it was not open for the respondents to discontinue them from service in a simplicitor manner. If any ailment during the course of employment occurred, then appropriate course at the first instance was to accommodate the appellants petitioners on a post suitable looking to their medical fitness and if in any event they were to be discontinued from service, then only by taking appropriate recourse prescribed under the Rules for that purpose." Relying upon the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Pramod Prasad (supra), learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court also submits that the case of the present petitioners in the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Pramod Prasad (supra). The learned standing counsel could not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner is covered by the case of Pramod Prasad (supra). Accordingly, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, the facts of the present case is squarely covered with the leading judgment in the case of Pramod Prasad (supra). Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.08.2007 is set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to cost.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, the applicant was allowed to resume his duties but the arrears of salary was not given for 4 the period, and due to pandemic of Covid - 19, the applicant could not approach the High Court, thereafter, on the basis of advice, he filed Writ A No.8416 of 2023 for the payment of arrears of salary alongwith back wages for the aforesaid period. He also submits that as per the directions of this Court in judgment and order dated 7.8.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.25313 (S/S) of 2018, the Writ A No.8416 of 2023 was disposed of on 31.10.2023 with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the applicant dated 22.4.2023 within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before said authority.

5. The order dated 31.10.2023 passed in Writ A No.8416 of 2023 reads as under :-

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties for payment of arrears of salary and all consequential benefits alongwith back wages for the period 2007 to 2019 as per directions of this Court in judgment and order dated 07.08.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.25313 (S/S) of 2018. Alternative prayer for consideration of petitioner's representation has also been made.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the aforesaid earlier writ petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 27.08.2007 whereby his appointment had been cancelled on being found medically unfit.

4. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 07.08.2019 with a direction to petitioner's reinstatement alongwith all consequential benefits. It is submitted that the aforesaid judgment has attained finality but consequential benefits have not yet 5. For the aforesaid grievance, petitioner has already submitted a representation dated 22.04.2023. At present learned counsel for petitioner restricts his prayer for a final decision with regard to same. him.

6. Considering innocuous prayer being made by learned counsel for petitioner and without entering into the merits of the case, opposite party No.1 i.e. Principal Secretary Home, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow or any competent authority is directed to consider and decide representation 5 dated 22.04.2023 in the light of judgment and order dated 07.08.2019 within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before said authority.

7. With the aforesaid observation, petition stands disposed of.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the order of the writ court dated 31.10.2023 was not being considered by the respondents, then he preferred, the present contempt application, in which, affidavit of compliance was filed by Ms. Vrinda Shukla, S.P. Bahraich with the fact that salary of the applicant has not been paid from 27.8.2007 to 9.12.2019 on the ground of "no work, no pay" and after hearing, the said affidavit of compliance was rejected by this Court on 10.9.2024.

7. The order dated 10.9.2024 passed by this Court in the present case reads as under:- no.2. record.

1. The affidavit of compliance filed by Shri Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel duly sworn in by respondent no.2, namely, Ms. Vrinda Shukla, SP, Bahraich is 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel for respondent 3. Present application has been filed with the prayer to summon and prosecute the respondents for willful and deliberate defiance of the order dated 31.10.2023 passed in Writ A No.8416 of 2023 (Nar Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that vide order dated 07.08.2019, direction was given by the Writ Court to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits, as the aforesaid order was not complied with, thereafter, Writ A No.8416 of 2023 was preferred which was disposed of 5. Order dated 07.08.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.25313 (S/S) of 2018 and order dated 31.10.2023 passed in Writ A No.8416 of 2023 are reproduced as under: Order dated 07.08.2019 on 31.10.2023. "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the respondents-State and also perused the record. 6 The present petition has been filed seeking a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing of the order dated 27.08.2007 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich by which the petitioners have been found unfit for the service on the ground that they were suffering colour blindness and appointment has been cancelled. the petitioners. The submission is that the petitioners were selected and were given appointment by means of the order dated 26.06.2005. They were posted at the Police Line, Bahraich. Thereafter, on 27.08.2007, the petitioners were subjected to medical test, wherein they were found suffering from colour blindness and by means of the impugned order, the selection of the petitioners was terminated merely on the ground of colour blindness. It is this order, which has been assailed by Learned counsel for the petitioners has brought on record and drawn the attention of the Court to a decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pramod Prasad and another vs. State of U.P. & Others, passed in Special Appeal No.59 of 2015, wherein the case of similarly situated persons as that of petitioner was considered and the Hon'ble Division Bench considering the entire facts of the matter found that the removal of the said appellants in the special appeal was absolutely unjustified and it set aside the order and the appellate Court in the special appeal also allowed the writ petition by means of its order dated 15.05.2019. The aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench was also considered in another case of Awadhesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Ors., in Writ - A No.5399 of 2017, wherein similarly situated persons have been granted the benefit of the aforesaid judgment. The relevant portion of the judgment in the case of Pramod Prasad (supra) is being reproduced for convenient perusal:- "8. At the threshold, we would like to state that appointment was accorded to the appellants petitioners as constable as a consequence of regular selection and therefore, they were working with the respondent in substantive capacity. From perusal of the order dated 20th August 2007, it is apparent that it is not a case of cancellation of the order of appointment, but removal from service. Though the order is labelled as an order terminating the petitioners from service in simplicitor manner but, it certainly has evil consequence. In the order term used is "removal from service". In view of it, we are of the considered opinion that the respondents should have conducted an enquiry in the matter as required 7 under the relevant Discipline and Appeal Rules before removing him from service. The view taken by us is further fortified by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of U.P. Vs Ali Mohd (Special Appeal (Defective) No 507 of 2013 decided on 12th Sept 2013 (supra). 6.The issue even on merits, requires consideration. As stated above, as per Appendix E of the Rules 1942, inability to distinguish the principal colours is not a cause for rejection but, the fact is required to be noted in the proceeding and necessary information in that regard should be given to the candidate concerned. It would also be appropriate to state that the provision aforesaid is not relating to inability to hold a post after employment, but a criteria that is to be kept in mind at the time of recruitment. In the case in hand, that criteria must have been kept in mind while recruiting the petitioners and the ailment, if was existing at the time of recruitment then that must have been noticed by the Medical Board. Nothing has been stated by the respondents in their counter affidavit in this regard and admittedly,no information was also given to the appellants. The presumption hence is that at the time of recruitment the appellant petitioners were not suffering from colour blindness, otherwise a note in that regard must have been made in the proceeding and information too had been given. It is further relevant to notice that if the appellants petitioners had been suffering from serious abnormality of vision, then at the time of recruitment, the respondents must have availed opinion of an Opthalmic Specialist as required under clause (G) of the standards settled in Appendix E. No formalities as noticed above were conducted. 9. In view of the fact that there is no material available on record to establish that the appellants petitioners were suffering from any vision impediment at the time of recruitment, it was not open for the respondents to discontinue them from service in a simplicitor manner. If any ailment during the course of employment occurred, then appropriate course at the first instance was to accommodate the appellants petitioners on a post suitable looking to their medical fitness and if in any event they were to be discontinued from service, then only by taking appropriate recourse prescribed under the Rules for that purpose." Relying upon the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Pramod Prasad (supra), learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court also submits that the case of the present petitioners in the instant petition is squarely 8 covered by the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Pramod The learned standing counsel could not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner is covered by the case of Pramod Prasad (supra). (supra). Prasad Accordingly, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, the facts of the present case is squarely covered with the leading judgment in the case of Pramod Prasad (supra). Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.08.2007 is set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to cost. " Order dated 31.10.2023 "1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties for payment of arrears of salary and all consequential benefits alongwith back wages for the period 2007 to 2019 as per directions of this Court in judgment and order dated 07.08.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.25313 (S/S) of 2018. Alternative prayer for consideration of petitioner's representation has also been made.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the aforesaid earlier writ petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 27.08.2007 whereby his appointment had been cancelled on being found medically unfit.

4. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 07.08.2019 with a direction to petitioner's reinstatement alongwith all consequential benefits. It is submitted that the aforesaid judgment has attained finality but consequential benefits have not yet been paid to him.

5. For the aforesaid grievance, petitioner has already submitted a representation dated 22.04.2023. At present learned counsel for petitioner restricts his prayer for a final decision with regard to same.

6. Considering innocuous prayer being made by learned counsel for petitioner and without entering into the merits of the case, opposite party No.1 i.e. Principal Secretary Home, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow or any competent 9 authority is directed to consider and decide representation dated 22.04.2023 in the light of judgment and order dated 07.08.2019 within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before said authority.

7. With the aforesaid observation, petition stands disposed of. "

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that order of Writ Court was not being complied with, as a result, present application has been filed by the applicant. He further submits that the salary of the applicant has not been paid from 27.08.2007 to 09.12.2019 on the ground of "no work, no pay", therefore, respondents should be summoned and punished accordingly.

7. It is evident from the affidavit of compliance filed today that the salary for the period of 27.08.2007 to 09.12.2019 has been denied on the ground of "no work, no pay". As there was a clear direction of Writ Court that the applicant shall be entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits and there is no passage to interpret the order of Writ Court. In such circumstances, affidavit of compliance filed today is hereby rejected. 8. List this case on 30.09.2024.

9. On the next date, fresh affidavit of compliance be filed, failing which, respondent no.2 shall appear in person before this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that another affidavit of compliance was filed by the learned Standing Counsel duly sworn by Ms. Vrinda Shukla, S.P. Bahraich on 13.11.2024 with the same verbatim. He also submits that in an identical case, the phrase 'consequential benefits back wages/arrears of salary' was provided to Pramod Prasad and others by Commandant, 48th I.R. Battalion, Sonbhadra. The copy of the office order in the case of Pramod Prasad is annexed with the application for impleadment as annexure no.6.

9. The order dated 28.1.2021 passed in the case of Pramod Prasad and Ors. by Commandant 48th I.R. Battalion reads as under :- 10 11

10. Considering the entire material facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled for all the benefits including arrears of back wages, therefore, the affidavit of compliance dated 13.11.2024 filed by respondent - Ms. Vrinda Shukla, S.P., Bahraich is hereby rejected.

11. List this case on 25.8.2025. 12

12. Respondent no.3 is directed to file a fresh affidavit of compliance, failing which, he shall appear before this Court for the purpose of framing of charge. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 GauraV/-

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was selected and appointed on the post of constable vide order dated 26.6.2005 and was allowed to work, thereafter, on 27.8.2007 his appointment letter was cancelled, which was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.25313 (S/S) of 2018 and the same was allowed after exchange of affidavits.

3. The order dated 7.8.2019 passed by the Court in Writ Petition No.25313 (S/S) of 2018 reads as under :- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the respondents-State and also perused the record. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing of the order dated 27.08.2007 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich by which the petitioners have been found unfit for the service on the ground that they were suffering colour blindness and appointment has been cancelled. The submission is that the petitioners were selected and were given appointment by means of the order dated 26.06.2005. They were posted at the Police Line, Bahraich. Thereafter, on 27.08.2007, the petitioners were subjected to medical test, wherein they were found suffering from colour blindness and by means of the impugned order, the selection of the petitioners was terminated merely on the ground of colour blindness. It is this order, which has been assailed by Learned counsel for the petitioners has brought on record and drawn the attention of the Court to a decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pramod Prasad and another vs. State of U.P. & Others, passed in the petitioners. 2 Special Appeal No.59 of 2015, wherein the case of similarly situated persons as that of petitioner was considered and the Hon'ble Division Bench considering the entire facts of the matter found that the removal of the said appellants in the special appeal was absolutely unjustified and it set aside the order and the appellate Court in the special appeal also allowed the writ petition by means of its order dated 15.05.2019. The aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench was also considered in another case of Awadhesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Ors., in Writ - A No.5399 of 2017, wherein similarly situated persons have been granted the benefit of the aforesaid judgment. The relevant portion of the judgment in the case of Pramod Prasad (supra) is being reproduced for convenient perusal:- "8. At the threshold, we would like to state that appointment was accorded to the appellants petitioners as constable as a consequence of regular selection and therefore, they were working with the respondent in substantive capacity. From perusal of the order dated 20th August 2007, it is apparent that it is not a case of cancellation of the order of appointment, but removal from service. Though the order is labelled as an order terminating the petitioners from service in simplicitor manner but, it certainly has evil consequence. In the order term used is "removal from service". In view of it, we are of the considered opinion that the respondents should have conducted an enquiry in the matter as required under the relevant Discipline and Appeal Rules before removing him from service. The view taken by us is further fortified by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of U.P. Vs Ali Mohd (Special Appeal (Defective) No 507 of 2013 decided on 12th Sept 2013 (supra). 6.The issue even on merits, requires consideration. As stated above, as per Appendix E of the Rules 1942, inability to distinguish the principal colours is not a cause for rejection but, the fact is required to be noted in the proceeding and necessary information in that regard should be given to the candidate concerned. It would also be appropriate to state that the provision aforesaid is not relating to inability to hold a post after employment, but a criteria that is to be kept in mind at the time of recruitment. In the case in hand, that criteria must have been kept in mind while recruiting the petitioners and the ailment, if was existing at the time of recruitment then that must have been noticed by the Medical Board. Nothing has been stated by the respondents in their counter affidavit in this regard and admittedly,no information was also given to the appellants. 3 The presumption hence is that at the time of recruitment the appellant petitioners were not suffering from colour blindness, otherwise a note in that regard must have been made in the proceeding and information too had been given. It is further relevant to notice that if the appellants petitioners had been suffering from serious abnormality of vision, then at the time of recruitment, the respondents must have availed opinion of an Opthalmic Specialist as required under clause (G) of the standards settled in Appendix E. No formalities as noticed above were conducted. 9. In view of the fact that there is no material available on record to establish that the appellants petitioners were suffering from any vision impediment at the time of recruitment, it was not open for the respondents to discontinue them from service in a simplicitor manner. If any ailment during the course of employment occurred, then appropriate course at the first instance was to accommodate the appellants petitioners on a post suitable looking to their medical fitness and if in any event they were to be discontinued from service, then only by taking appropriate recourse prescribed under the Rules for that purpose." Relying upon the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Pramod Prasad (supra), learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court also submits that the case of the present petitioners in the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Pramod Prasad (supra). The learned standing counsel could not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner is covered by the case of Pramod Prasad (supra). Accordingly, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, the facts of the present case is squarely covered with the leading judgment in the case of Pramod Prasad (supra). Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.08.2007 is set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to cost.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, the applicant was allowed to resume his duties but the arrears of salary was not given for 4 the period, and due to pandemic of Covid - 19, the applicant could not approach the High Court, thereafter, on the basis of advice, he filed Writ A No.8416 of 2023 for the payment of arrears of salary alongwith back wages for the aforesaid period. He also submits that as per the directions of this Court in judgment and order dated 7.8.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.25313 (S/S) of 2018, the Writ A No.8416 of 2023 was disposed of on 31.10.2023 with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the applicant dated 22.4.2023 within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before said authority.

5. The order dated 31.10.2023 passed in Writ A No.8416 of 2023 reads as under :-

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties for payment of arrears of salary and all consequential benefits alongwith back wages for the period 2007 to 2019 as per directions of this Court in judgment and order dated 07.08.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.25313 (S/S) of 2018. Alternative prayer for consideration of petitioner's representation has also been made.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the aforesaid earlier writ petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 27.08.2007 whereby his appointment had been cancelled on being found medically unfit.

4. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 07.08.2019 with a direction to petitioner's reinstatement alongwith all consequential benefits. It is submitted that the aforesaid judgment has attained finality but consequential benefits have not yet 5. For the aforesaid grievance, petitioner has already submitted a representation dated 22.04.2023. At present learned counsel for petitioner restricts his prayer for a final decision with regard to same. him.

6. Considering innocuous prayer being made by learned counsel for petitioner and without entering into the merits of the case, opposite party No.1 i.e. Principal Secretary Home, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow or any competent authority is directed to consider and decide representation 5 dated 22.04.2023 in the light of judgment and order dated 07.08.2019 within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before said authority.

7. With the aforesaid observation, petition stands disposed of.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the order of the writ court dated 31.10.2023 was not being considered by the respondents, then he preferred, the present contempt application, in which, affidavit of compliance was filed by Ms. Vrinda Shukla, S.P. Bahraich with the fact that salary of the applicant has not been paid from 27.8.2007 to 9.12.2019 on the ground of "no work, no pay" and after hearing, the said affidavit of compliance was rejected by this Court on 10.9.2024.

7. The order dated 10.9.2024 passed by this Court in the present case reads as under:- no.2. record.

1. The affidavit of compliance filed by Shri Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel duly sworn in by respondent no.2, namely, Ms. Vrinda Shukla, SP, Bahraich is 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel for respondent 3. Present application has been filed with the prayer to summon and prosecute the respondents for willful and deliberate defiance of the order dated 31.10.2023 passed in Writ A No.8416 of 2023 (Nar Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that vide order dated 07.08.2019, direction was given by the Writ Court to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits, as the aforesaid order was not complied with, thereafter, Writ A No.8416 of 2023 was preferred which was disposed of 5. Order dated 07.08.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.25313 (S/S) of 2018 and order dated 31.10.2023 passed in Writ A No.8416 of 2023 are reproduced as under: Order dated 07.08.2019 on 31.10.2023. "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the respondents-State and also perused the record. 6 The present petition has been filed seeking a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing of the order dated 27.08.2007 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich by which the petitioners have been found unfit for the service on the ground that they were suffering colour blindness and appointment has been cancelled. the petitioners. The submission is that the petitioners were selected and were given appointment by means of the order dated 26.06.2005. They were posted at the Police Line, Bahraich. Thereafter, on 27.08.2007, the petitioners were subjected to medical test, wherein they were found suffering from colour blindness and by means of the impugned order, the selection of the petitioners was terminated merely on the ground of colour blindness. It is this order, which has been assailed by Learned counsel for the petitioners has brought on record and drawn the attention of the Court to a decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pramod Prasad and another vs. State of U.P. & Others, passed in Special Appeal No.59 of 2015, wherein the case of similarly situated persons as that of petitioner was considered and the Hon'ble Division Bench considering the entire facts of the matter found that the removal of the said appellants in the special appeal was absolutely unjustified and it set aside the order and the appellate Court in the special appeal also allowed the writ petition by means of its order dated 15.05.2019. The aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench was also considered in another case of Awadhesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Ors., in Writ - A No.5399 of 2017, wherein similarly situated persons have been granted the benefit of the aforesaid judgment. The relevant portion of the judgment in the case of Pramod Prasad (supra) is being reproduced for convenient perusal:- "8. At the threshold, we would like to state that appointment was accorded to the appellants petitioners as constable as a consequence of regular selection and therefore, they were working with the respondent in substantive capacity. From perusal of the order dated 20th August 2007, it is apparent that it is not a case of cancellation of the order of appointment, but removal from service. Though the order is labelled as an order terminating the petitioners from service in simplicitor manner but, it certainly has evil consequence. In the order term used is "removal from service". In view of it, we are of the considered opinion that the respondents should have conducted an enquiry in the matter as required 7 under the relevant Discipline and Appeal Rules before removing him from service. The view taken by us is further fortified by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of U.P. Vs Ali Mohd (Special Appeal (Defective) No 507 of 2013 decided on 12th Sept 2013 (supra). 6.The issue even on merits, requires consideration. As stated above, as per Appendix E of the Rules 1942, inability to distinguish the principal colours is not a cause for rejection but, the fact is required to be noted in the proceeding and necessary information in that regard should be given to the candidate concerned. It would also be appropriate to state that the provision aforesaid is not relating to inability to hold a post after employment, but a criteria that is to be kept in mind at the time of recruitment. In the case in hand, that criteria must have been kept in mind while recruiting the petitioners and the ailment, if was existing at the time of recruitment then that must have been noticed by the Medical Board. Nothing has been stated by the respondents in their counter affidavit in this regard and admittedly,no information was also given to the appellants. The presumption hence is that at the time of recruitment the appellant petitioners were not suffering from colour blindness, otherwise a note in that regard must have been made in the proceeding and information too had been given. It is further relevant to notice that if the appellants petitioners had been suffering from serious abnormality of vision, then at the time of recruitment, the respondents must have availed opinion of an Opthalmic Specialist as required under clause (G) of the standards settled in Appendix E. No formalities as noticed above were conducted. 9. In view of the fact that there is no material available on record to establish that the appellants petitioners were suffering from any vision impediment at the time of recruitment, it was not open for the respondents to discontinue them from service in a simplicitor manner. If any ailment during the course of employment occurred, then appropriate course at the first instance was to accommodate the appellants petitioners on a post suitable looking to their medical fitness and if in any event they were to be discontinued from service, then only by taking appropriate recourse prescribed under the Rules for that purpose." Relying upon the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Pramod Prasad (supra), learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court also submits that the case of the present petitioners in the instant petition is squarely 8 covered by the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Pramod The learned standing counsel could not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner is covered by the case of Pramod Prasad (supra). (supra). Prasad Accordingly, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, the facts of the present case is squarely covered with the leading judgment in the case of Pramod Prasad (supra). Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.08.2007 is set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to cost. " Order dated 31.10.2023 "1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties for payment of arrears of salary and all consequential benefits alongwith back wages for the period 2007 to 2019 as per directions of this Court in judgment and order dated 07.08.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.25313 (S/S) of 2018. Alternative prayer for consideration of petitioner's representation has also been made.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the aforesaid earlier writ petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 27.08.2007 whereby his appointment had been cancelled on being found medically unfit.

4. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 07.08.2019 with a direction to petitioner's reinstatement alongwith all consequential benefits. It is submitted that the aforesaid judgment has attained finality but consequential benefits have not yet been paid to him.

5. For the aforesaid grievance, petitioner has already submitted a representation dated 22.04.2023. At present learned counsel for petitioner restricts his prayer for a final decision with regard to same.

6. Considering innocuous prayer being made by learned counsel for petitioner and without entering into the merits of the case, opposite party No.1 i.e. Principal Secretary Home, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow or any competent 9 authority is directed to consider and decide representation dated 22.04.2023 in the light of judgment and order dated 07.08.2019 within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before said authority.

7. With the aforesaid observation, petition stands disposed of. "

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that order of Writ Court was not being complied with, as a result, present application has been filed by the applicant. He further submits that the salary of the applicant has not been paid from 27.08.2007 to 09.12.2019 on the ground of "no work, no pay", therefore, respondents should be summoned and punished accordingly.

7. It is evident from the affidavit of compliance filed today that the salary for the period of 27.08.2007 to 09.12.2019 has been denied on the ground of "no work, no pay". As there was a clear direction of Writ Court that the applicant shall be entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits and there is no passage to interpret the order of Writ Court. In such circumstances, affidavit of compliance filed today is hereby rejected. 8. List this case on 30.09.2024.

9. On the next date, fresh affidavit of compliance be filed, failing which, respondent no.2 shall appear in person before this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that another affidavit of compliance was filed by the learned Standing Counsel duly sworn by Ms. Vrinda Shukla, S.P. Bahraich on 13.11.2024 with the same verbatim. He also submits that in an identical case, the phrase 'consequential benefits back wages/arrears of salary' was provided to Pramod Prasad and others by Commandant, 48th I.R. Battalion, Sonbhadra. The copy of the office order in the case of Pramod Prasad is annexed with the application for impleadment as annexure no.6.

9. The order dated 28.1.2021 passed in the case of Pramod Prasad and Ors. by Commandant 48th I.R. Battalion reads as under :- 10 11

10. Considering the entire material facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled for all the benefits including arrears of back wages, therefore, the affidavit of compliance dated 13.11.2024 filed by respondent - Ms. Vrinda Shukla, S.P., Bahraich is hereby rejected.

11. List this case on 25.8.2025. 12

12. Respondent no.3 is directed to file a fresh affidavit of compliance, failing which, he shall appear before this Court for the purpose of framing of charge. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 GauraV/-