High Court · 2025

Petitioner :- Surajpal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Bheem Singh,C.S.C. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to pay arrears of salary from August, 1992 to February, 2013 along with all other consequential benefits together with 18% interest till the date of actual payment. Consequently, through amendment, the petitioner assailed the order dated 25.02.2013 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Budaun, refusing to pay salary for the said period.

3. Record reveals that the petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee in the 3rd respondent - Institution on 31.10.1982. Initially, the petitioner made an application for leave for two days i.e. 30.07.1991 and 31.07.1991. After that, on 04.08.1991, the petitioner applied for casual leave for five days. Consequently when the petitioner wanted to join duties, the respondent did not allow him to join and, therefore, he approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.2906 of 1992 with the prayer for commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to join his duties as Class-IV employee in the Inter College, Bilsi, Budaun and directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner. On 02.12.2005, the said writ petition was disposed of with the following directions: "Accordingly the order of terminated dated 18th June, 1992 is hereby quashed. In the result, the petitioner shall be treated to be reinstated in service but only for limited purpose of holing disciplinary inquiry against him. The respondents are directed to hold proper and full fledged disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner. In case the petitioner does not cooperate in such disciplinary inquiry, they shall be at liberty to hold ex parte disciplinary inquiry against him and take appropriate and final decision thereon. In case the petitioner succeeds in disciplinary inquiry the respondents are also directed to decide the claim of admissibility of payment of salary from the date of termination of service upon to the date of reinstatement of the petitioner and with regard to the continuity of service of petitioner. However, in given facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents shall take proper decision within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of the order passed by this Court to the respondent no.2."

4. Consequently, upon the said directions instead of permitting the petitioner to join duties, the respondents terminated services of the petitioner vide order dated 09.05.2006. The said order was assailed before this Court by filing Writ-A No.46798 of 2006. On 19.09.2012, the said writ petition was disposed of with the following directions: "Counsel for the petitioner submitted that when petitioner was not permitted to join service, then a Contempt Petition No. 1159 of 2006 was filed, in which a notice was issued and subsequently counter affidavit was filed annexing the termination order dated 9.5.2006. The alleged enquiry in pursuance of the letter dated 6.5.2006 written by the Principal, neither any charge sheet was submitted by the Enquiry Officer nor any opportunity of hearing was given to examine the witnesses or to cross-examine the witnesses or supply of the general record and without following procedure prescribed under Rule 36 of Chapter 3 framed under Section16(g) of the Intermediate Education Act, without following the proper procedure, arbitrarily, the enquiry was concluded and subsequently, the services of the petitioner was terminated. Hence, the impugned order is illegal, without jurisdiction and against the principle of natural justice. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 and learned Standing Counsel opposed the prayer and submitted that opportunity was given to the petitioner. He himself submitted reply to the Principal of the institution. Considered the submission of counsel for the parties. From perusal of letter issued by the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner, it is clear that the information is incomplete, only the information was given to appear before the Enquiry Officer. No charge sheet was given and in absence of the charges, the petitioner was not aware, what kind of reply has to be given. Hence, he submitted that he had already given a reply to the Principal. Since neither there was any charge sheet to which the petitioner was required to submit his reply nor opportunity of hearing or placing the evidence was given, hence, on the basis of expert enquiry report, order of termination was passed. Hence, in view of the fact, there is violation of principle of natural justice. If there is no observation of rule of natural justice, this is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In view of the fact impugned order dated 9.5.2006 is hereby quashed. The Enquiry Officer has to conduct the enquiry in accordance with law, in compliance of the order dated 2.12.2005 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2906 of 1992 preferably within three months. The respondent no. 3 is also expected to permit the petitioner to join the service on the post of Class IV in compliance of the order dated 2.12.2005, if he has not been permitted already to join on the said post. After the enquiry report, the respondents no. 2 and 3 will pass fresh order within six weeks, thereafter. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby allowed. No order as to cost. "

5. Consequent upon pressing the Contempt of Courts Act, the respondents passed the order on 25.02.2013. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: उपररककननसकर ववदकलय कक पधकनकचकयर कर वनररश वरयक जकतक हह वक शश पकम सससह ( " चतनरर शकणश कमरचकरश कर अनय ररक कक पवत समकयरसजत करकक यकचश कक उसकक ममल पर पर ततककल पभकव सक ककयरभकर गहण करकयय यकचश कक पतयकवकरन वरनकसक 26-9-2012 वनसतकररत वकयक जकतक हह।" ममतक आसशत)

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an illiterate person and he was appointed as Class-IV employee in the respondent's Institution. For personal reasons, the petitioner was not able to join duties in time. Without following the procedure, the respondents have not permitted the petitioner to join duties with ulterior motive. Left with no option, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.2906 of 1992. After two decades, the respondents instead of complying with the said directions affecting payment of salary to the petitioner from 1992 onwards. The respondents passed the impugned order only permitting the petitioner to join duties and payment of salary from the date of joining which is contrary to the orders passed by this Court.

7. In reply to the said contention, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents filed counter affidavit and submitted that when the petitioner did not turn up to join his duties in the said Institution, the respondent - Institution has issued notice in the daily newspaper on 04.10.1991 informing the petitioner to come and join his duties in the Institution. Despite the same, the petitioner did not turn up, the said Institution appointed one Ganesh Dutt Jha in place of the petitioner. Hence, other person was appointed in his place and salary has been paid to the said person. As the petitioner has not worked from 1991, therefore, he is not entitled for salary. In compliance to the orders passed by this Court, the respondents have passed the order on 25.02.2013 permitting the petitioner to join duties and accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to salary from the date of joining. In view of payment already made to one Ganesh Dutt Jha, the petitioner is not entitled for salary for the work not done in between period 1992 to 2013 and till passing of the impugned orders. The claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the respondents. Hence, learned Standing Counsel requested to dismiss the writ petition.

8. On perusal of the first order of this Court passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.2906 of 1992, it transpires that this Court has clearly held that the petitioner shall be treated to be reinstated in service meaning thereby the petitioner is directed to be continued as in service. Only opportunity has been given to the respondents to follow the procedure contemplated under the Rules, complete inquiry and take appropriate decision. It indicates that the petitioner ought to be continued in service. The very grievance of the petitioner existed since 1992 when he approached this Court to permit him to join his duties. It clearly indicates that the petitioner was intended to join duties in 1992 but for the reason best known to the respondents, they have not permitted the petitioner to join his duties. Hence the petitioner has approached this Court for redressal of his grievance. This Court has categorically held that the petitioner is deemed to be in service. Further, the second writ petition was disposed of with the observation that the respondents are expected to permit the petitioner to join service on the post of Class-IV in compliance of the order dated 02.12.2005 which clearly indicates intention of this Court while disposing of the said writ petition. To comply with the said order, the respondents passed the impugned order on 25.02.2013 only permitting the petitioner to join from the said date onwards is quite contrary to the observations made by this Court in the above stated two orders. Fact remains whether the Management or the State-respondents have not filed any special appeal against these two orders.

9. Once this Court has held that the petitioner is deemed to be in service and is entitled for payment of salary from the date of termination, the respondents ought not to have overlooked the said directions only on the ground that the petitioner has not worked during the said period. As the respondents have not complied with the orders in toto within time, the petitioner's claim for salary cannot be denied. It is settled principle of law that once the petitioner was not allowed to discharge his duties and as per intervention of the Court, the respondents cannot deny claim of the petitioner only on the ground of no work for no pay. The said principle is not applicable in the present case. Once the illegal termination orders are set aside, the petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits including salary.

10. Therefore, the impugned order dated 25.02.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent, is set aside with regard to denying the claim for payment of salary from 1992 till passing of the impugned order. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents to release the salary to the petitioner from the date of filing of the first writ petition i.e. writ petition no.2906 of 1992.

11. Consequently, the instant writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 (Donadi Ramesh, J.) RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Petitioner :- Surajpal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Bheem Singh,C.S.C. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to pay arrears of salary from August, 1992 to February, 2013 along with all other consequential benefits together with 18% interest till the date of actual payment. Consequently, through amendment, the petitioner assailed the order dated 25.02.2013 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Budaun, refusing to pay salary for the said period.

3. Record reveals that the petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee in the 3rd respondent - Institution on 31.10.1982. Initially, the petitioner made an application for leave for two days i.e. 30.07.1991 and 31.07.1991. After that, on 04.08.1991, the petitioner applied for casual leave for five days. Consequently when the petitioner wanted to join duties, the respondent did not allow him to join and, therefore, he approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.2906 of 1992 with the prayer for commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to join his duties as Class-IV employee in the Inter College, Bilsi, Budaun and directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner. On 02.12.2005, the said writ petition was disposed of with the following directions: "Accordingly the order of terminated dated 18th June, 1992 is hereby quashed. In the result, the petitioner shall be treated to be reinstated in service but only for limited purpose of holing disciplinary inquiry against him. The respondents are directed to hold proper and full fledged disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner. In case the petitioner does not cooperate in such disciplinary inquiry, they shall be at liberty to hold ex parte disciplinary inquiry against him and take appropriate and final decision thereon. In case the petitioner succeeds in disciplinary inquiry the respondents are also directed to decide the claim of admissibility of payment of salary from the date of termination of service upon to the date of reinstatement of the petitioner and with regard to the continuity of service of petitioner. However, in given facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents shall take proper decision within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of the order passed by this Court to the respondent no.2."

4. Consequently, upon the said directions instead of permitting the petitioner to join duties, the respondents terminated services of the petitioner vide order dated 09.05.2006. The said order was assailed before this Court by filing Writ-A No.46798 of 2006. On 19.09.2012, the said writ petition was disposed of with the following directions: "Counsel for the petitioner submitted that when petitioner was not permitted to join service, then a Contempt Petition No. 1159 of 2006 was filed, in which a notice was issued and subsequently counter affidavit was filed annexing the termination order dated 9.5.2006. The alleged enquiry in pursuance of the letter dated 6.5.2006 written by the Principal, neither any charge sheet was submitted by the Enquiry Officer nor any opportunity of hearing was given to examine the witnesses or to cross-examine the witnesses or supply of the general record and without following procedure prescribed under Rule 36 of Chapter 3 framed under Section16(g) of the Intermediate Education Act, without following the proper procedure, arbitrarily, the enquiry was concluded and subsequently, the services of the petitioner was terminated. Hence, the impugned order is illegal, without jurisdiction and against the principle of natural justice. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 and learned Standing Counsel opposed the prayer and submitted that opportunity was given to the petitioner. He himself submitted reply to the Principal of the institution. Considered the submission of counsel for the parties. From perusal of letter issued by the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner, it is clear that the information is incomplete, only the information was given to appear before the Enquiry Officer. No charge sheet was given and in absence of the charges, the petitioner was not aware, what kind of reply has to be given. Hence, he submitted that he had already given a reply to the Principal. Since neither there was any charge sheet to which the petitioner was required to submit his reply nor opportunity of hearing or placing the evidence was given, hence, on the basis of expert enquiry report, order of termination was passed. Hence, in view of the fact, there is violation of principle of natural justice. If there is no observation of rule of natural justice, this is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In view of the fact impugned order dated 9.5.2006 is hereby quashed. The Enquiry Officer has to conduct the enquiry in accordance with law, in compliance of the order dated 2.12.2005 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2906 of 1992 preferably within three months. The respondent no. 3 is also expected to permit the petitioner to join the service on the post of Class IV in compliance of the order dated 2.12.2005, if he has not been permitted already to join on the said post. After the enquiry report, the respondents no. 2 and 3 will pass fresh order within six weeks, thereafter. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby allowed. No order as to cost. "

5. Consequent upon pressing the Contempt of Courts Act, the respondents passed the order on 25.02.2013. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: उपररककननसकर ववदकलय कक पधकनकचकयर कर वनररश वरयक जकतक हह वक शश पकम सससह ( " चतनरर शकणश कमरचकरश कर अनय ररक कक पवत समकयरसजत करकक यकचश कक उसकक ममल पर पर ततककल पभकव सक ककयरभकर गहण करकयय यकचश कक पतयकवकरन वरनकसक 26-9-2012 वनसतकररत वकयक जकतक हह।" ममतक आसशत)

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an illiterate person and he was appointed as Class-IV employee in the respondent's Institution. For personal reasons, the petitioner was not able to join duties in time. Without following the procedure, the respondents have not permitted the petitioner to join duties with ulterior motive. Left with no option, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.2906 of 1992. After two decades, the respondents instead of complying with the said directions affecting payment of salary to the petitioner from 1992 onwards. The respondents passed the impugned order only permitting the petitioner to join duties and payment of salary from the date of joining which is contrary to the orders passed by this Court.

7. In reply to the said contention, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents filed counter affidavit and submitted that when the petitioner did not turn up to join his duties in the said Institution, the respondent - Institution has issued notice in the daily newspaper on 04.10.1991 informing the petitioner to come and join his duties in the Institution. Despite the same, the petitioner did not turn up, the said Institution appointed one Ganesh Dutt Jha in place of the petitioner. Hence, other person was appointed in his place and salary has been paid to the said person. As the petitioner has not worked from 1991, therefore, he is not entitled for salary. In compliance to the orders passed by this Court, the respondents have passed the order on 25.02.2013 permitting the petitioner to join duties and accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to salary from the date of joining. In view of payment already made to one Ganesh Dutt Jha, the petitioner is not entitled for salary for the work not done in between period 1992 to 2013 and till passing of the impugned orders. The claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the respondents. Hence, learned Standing Counsel requested to dismiss the writ petition.

8. On perusal of the first order of this Court passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.2906 of 1992, it transpires that this Court has clearly held that the petitioner shall be treated to be reinstated in service meaning thereby the petitioner is directed to be continued as in service. Only opportunity has been given to the respondents to follow the procedure contemplated under the Rules, complete inquiry and take appropriate decision. It indicates that the petitioner ought to be continued in service. The very grievance of the petitioner existed since 1992 when he approached this Court to permit him to join his duties. It clearly indicates that the petitioner was intended to join duties in 1992 but for the reason best known to the respondents, they have not permitted the petitioner to join his duties. Hence the petitioner has approached this Court for redressal of his grievance. This Court has categorically held that the petitioner is deemed to be in service. Further, the second writ petition was disposed of with the observation that the respondents are expected to permit the petitioner to join service on the post of Class-IV in compliance of the order dated 02.12.2005 which clearly indicates intention of this Court while disposing of the said writ petition. To comply with the said order, the respondents passed the impugned order on 25.02.2013 only permitting the petitioner to join from the said date onwards is quite contrary to the observations made by this Court in the above stated two orders. Fact remains whether the Management or the State-respondents have not filed any special appeal against these two orders.

9. Once this Court has held that the petitioner is deemed to be in service and is entitled for payment of salary from the date of termination, the respondents ought not to have overlooked the said directions only on the ground that the petitioner has not worked during the said period. As the respondents have not complied with the orders in toto within time, the petitioner's claim for salary cannot be denied. It is settled principle of law that once the petitioner was not allowed to discharge his duties and as per intervention of the Court, the respondents cannot deny claim of the petitioner only on the ground of no work for no pay. The said principle is not applicable in the present case. Once the illegal termination orders are set aside, the petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits including salary.

10. Therefore, the impugned order dated 25.02.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent, is set aside with regard to denying the claim for payment of salary from 1992 till passing of the impugned order. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents to release the salary to the petitioner from the date of filing of the first writ petition i.e. writ petition no.2906 of 1992.

11. Consequently, the instant writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 (Donadi Ramesh, J.) RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad