State of U.P. and Others v. Shukla, Pradeep Kumar Tiwari

Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Usha Kiran, learned counsel for respondents.

2. The petitioner, a Meter Inspector in Electricity Distribution Divison, Govind Nagar, Kanpur, has approached earlier this Court when his services were dispensed with by way of a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12018 of 2003. The said Writ Petition was allowed by an order dated 21.02.2009, whereby he was reinstated, however, issue of fresh inquiry and of back wages was kept open and for reference its relevant part is reproduced hereinafter :- “The position which emerges in the present case is that after earlier order of punishment had been passed on 21.11.2002, petitioner joined his duties on 07.12.2002 and thereafter, petitioner disappeared, qua which complaint was made on 15.01.2003 and 25.02.2003, mentioning therein that petitioner was not taking interest in his work. After said complaint had been made taking into account the past conduct of the petitioner, the Managing Director of KESA proceeded to pass the impugned order on 28.02.2003. Said order cannot be sustained, inasmuch as once services of petitioner were being dispensed with on charges that he was not taking interest in his work, then holding of inquiry was condition precedent, instead of proceeding to pass order dispensing with his services, as such order dated 28.02.2003 cannot be sustained. Consequently, present writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. Impugned order dated 28.02.2003 is quashed. However, passing of this order will not prevent the respondents from undertaking disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law, and in respect of back wages as well as in respect of subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner, decision shall be taken by the authorities concerned in accordance with law. “

3. In aforesaid circumstances, the respondents have passed an order dated 06.05.2010, whereby petitioner was reinstated but claim for back wages and subsistence allowance was rejected on principle of ‘No Work No Pay’, taking note that he has already crossed age of superannuataion. For reference the said order is reproduced hereinafter :- “्ቦी सुजीत कुमार मोइ्ቔा, मीटर इन्सपेक्टर वि(cid:21)्ቕुत वि(cid:21)तरण खण्ड गोवि(cid:21)न्दनगर, केस्को कानपुर के ्ቛारा अपने काኘ᭡" में रूचि& न लि(ኘ᭡े जाने तथा काኘ᭡* से अनुपቝኌस्थत रहने के कारण उनकी से(cid:21)ाኘ᭡ें केस्को के काኘ᭡ा*(ኘ᭡ ्ሺाप सं० 184/एम० डी०/कैम्प/03 विदनांक

28.02.03 के ्ቛारा तत्का( ्ቚभा(cid:21) से समा्቎ कर दी गኘ᭡ी थी। ्ቦी मोइ्ቔा ने अपनी से(cid:21)ासमावि्቎ के उ्ሹ आदेश को मा० उ्ሴ न्ኘ᭡ाኘ᭡ा(ኘ᭡ में ኘ᭡ाचि&का सं0 12018/03 विन(cid:21)ेशिशत कर &ुनौती दी। मा० उ्ሴ न्ኘ᭡ाኘ᭡ा(ኘ᭡ ्ቛारा ኘ᭡ाचि&का सं० 12018/03 में पारिरत आदेश विदनांक 21.12.09 के अनुपा(न में ्ቦी एस०के० मोइ्ቔा, मीटर इन्सपेक्टर को विदनांक

28.02.03 से से(cid:21)ा में विनम्नलि(लिखत शत" के ्ቚचितबन्धाधीन पुनस्था*विपत विकኘ᭡ा जाता है:- 1- ्ቦी एस० के० मोइ्ቔा , मीटर इन्सपेक्टर ्ቛारा 58 (cid:21)्ቧ* की अचिध(cid:21)्ቧ*ता आኘ᭡ु पूण* कर (ेने पर उन्हें विदनांक

30.06.06 से से(cid:21)ाविन(cid:21)ृ्ቈ हुआ माना जाए । 2- ्ቦी एस० के० मोइ्ቔा , मीटर इन्सपेक्टर ने अपनी से(cid:21)ासमावि्቎ की चितशिथ से से(cid:21)ाविन(cid:21)ृलि्ቈ की चितशिथ

30.06.06 तक कोई वि(cid:21)भागीኘ᭡ काኘ᭡* सम्पाविदत नहीं विकኘ᭡ा है , अतः उन्हें " काम नहीं , तो (cid:21)ेतन नहीं ", के सिस्ቍान्त के आधार पर उ्ሹ अ(cid:21)चिध के (cid:21)ेतनाविद का भुगतान अनुमन्ኘ᭡ नहीं होगा। 2 of 6 3- ्ቦी एस० के० मोइ्ቔा, मीटर इन्सपेक्टर की से(cid:21)ाኘ᭡ें सिजस आधार पर समा्቎ की गኘ᭡ी थी उसकी जाँ& ्ቦी अरुण कुमार, अधी्ቌण अशिभኘ᭡न्ता (वि(cid:21)०) वि्ቛतीኘ᭡, फज(गंज, केस्को के माध्ኘ᭡म से कराकर आ(cid:21)श्ኘ᭡क काኘ᭡*(cid:21)ाही की जाए ।”

4. Undisputedly, the petitioner instead to challenge the aforesaid order and without disclosing said order, has approached this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition No.43415 of 2010. The Writ Petition was disposed of by an order dated 27.07.2010 with a direction to consider the issue of back wages. For reference, said order is reproduced hereinafter :- “It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the services of the petitioner were terminated under the order of the Managing Director, Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Ltd., Kanpur Nagar dated 28th February, 2003. The order was challenged by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12018 of 2003. The writ petition was allowed under the order dated 21st December, 2009 and the order of termination has been set aside. However, it has been provided that respondents would be at liberty to undertake the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law and in respect of back wages as well as in respect of subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner, decision shall be taken by the authorities concerned in accordance with law. It appears that the petitioner did not inform the Court that on the date the writ petition was decided, he had already retired from service i.e. in the year 2006 and it is in this background that the employer was permitted to . However, nothing further conclude the is required to be added on that score, inasmuch as the Court left it open to the authorities to examine the issue with regard to the permanent of back wages and the other benefits as well as in respect of subsistence allowance in accordance with law. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no.2 to take appropriate decision in the matter of petitioner as per the directions issued by this Court under order dated 21st December, 2009 referred to above at the earliest possible preferably within eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. ” departmental proceedings

5. In pursuance of above order, claim of petitioner was again considered and was again rejected by an order dated

21.09.2010 that issue of back wages and subsistence allowance 3 of 6 was already considered and rejected when petitioner was reinstated by an order dated 06.05.2010, which remained unchallenged and therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent to review it. For reference relevant part of aforesaid order dated 21.09.2010 is reproduced hereinafter :- “्ቦी सुजीत कुमार मोइ्ቔा, मीटर इन्सपेक्टर, वि(cid:21)्ቕुत वि(cid:21)तरण खण्ड तथा काኘ᭡* से गोवि(cid:21)न्दनगर, केस्को ्ቛारा अपने काኘ᭡* में रूचि& न लि(ኘ᭡े जाने तथा काኘ᭡* से अनुपቝኌस्थत रहने के कारण उनकी से(cid:21)ाኘ᭡ें केस्को के काኘ᭡ा*(ኘ᭡ ्ሺाप सं० 184/एम०डी०/कैम्प / 03 विदनांक 29.02.03 ्ቛारा तत्का( ्ቚभा(cid:21) से समा्቎ कर दी गኘ᭡ी थी । ्ቦी मोइ्ቔा ने अपनी से(cid:21)ा समावि्቎ के उ्ሹ आदेश के वि(cid:21)रू्ቍ मा० उ्ሴ न्ኘ᭡ाኘ᭡ा(ኘ᭡ , इ(ाहाबाद के सम्ቌ ኘ᭡ाचि&का सं० 12018/03 विन(cid:21)ेशिशत कर &ुनौती दी। मा० उ्ሴ न्ኘ᭡ाኘ᭡ा(ኘ᭡ में (cid:21)ादी ्ቛारा ኘ᭡ोसिजत ኘ᭡ाचि&का सं0 12018/03 में पारिरत आदेश विदनांक 21.12.09 के अनुपा(न में केस्को मुख्ኘ᭡ा(ኘ᭡ के काኘ᭡ा*(ኘ᭡ ्ሺाप सं0 12018/03/391 विदनांक

06.05.10 ्ቛारा इसका अनुपा(न विकኘ᭡ा गኘ᭡ा ए(cid:21)ं मा० उ्ሴ न्ኘ᭡ाኘ᭡ा(ኘ᭡ , इ(ाहाबाद के विनदTशानुसार वि(cid:21)भागीኘ᭡ जाँ& विकኘ᭡े जाने का विनण*ኘ᭡ लि(ኘ᭡ा गኘ᭡ा ए(cid:21)ं काኘ᭡ा*(ኘ᭡ ्ሺाप सं० ኘ᭡ाचि&का सं० 12018/03/421 विदनांक

13.05.10 ्ቛारा ्ቦी अरुण कुमार , अधी्ቌण अशिभኘ᭡न्ता ( वि(cid:21)० ), वि्ቛतीኘ᭡ , फज(गंज । , केस्को को जाँ& अचिधकारी नाविमत विकኘ᭡ा गኘ᭡ा काኘ᭡ा*(ኘ᭡ ्ሺाप सं० 12018/03/391 विदनांक 06.05.10 ए(cid:21)ं काኘ᭡ा*(ኘ᭡ ्ሺाप सं० ኘ᭡ाचि&का सं० 12018/03/421 विदनांक 13.05.10 की ्ቚचित उनके आ(cid:21)ासीኘ᭡ पते पर भेजी गई जो इस विटप्पणी के साथ (cid:21)ाविपस आ गई विक "घर में ता(ा बन्द" है । उ्ሹ काኘ᭡ा*(ኘ᭡ ्ሺाप की ्ቚचितኘ᭡ाँ वि(cid:21)शे्ቧ प्ቔ(cid:21)ाहक के साथ उनके आ(cid:21)ास पर भेजे गኘ᭡े तब भी ता(ा बन्द विम(ा। अतः दैविनक जागरण ए(cid:21)ं अमर उजा(ा में ्ቅमशः विदनांक 08.07.10 ए(cid:21)ं विदनांक 08.07.10 को सू&ना ्ቚकाशिशत की गኘ᭡ी। इसी मध्ኘ᭡ ्ቦी मोइ्ቔा ने पुनः मा० उ्ሴ न्ኘ᭡ाኘ᭡ा(ኘ᭡ इ(ाहाबाद के सम्ቌ ኘ᭡ाचि&का सं0 43415/10 ኘ᭡ोसिजत की ए(cid:21)ं (cid:21)ेतन भ्ቈो की माँग की । मा० उ्ሴ न्ኘ᭡ाኘ᭡ा(ኘ᭡ के सं्ሺान में (cid:21)ादी ्ቛारा ኘ᭡ह तथ्ኘ᭡ नहीं (ाኘ᭡ा गኘ᭡ा था विक (cid:21)ह से(cid:21)ाविन(cid:21)ृ्ቈ हो &ुका है सिजस कारण मा० उ्ሴ न्ኘ᭡ाኘ᭡ा(ኘ᭡ में से(cid:21)ाኘ᭡ोजकों को जाँ& सम्पाविदत करने हेतु स्(cid:21)तं्ቔ छोड़ा था। इस सम्बन्ध में मा० उ्ሴ न्ኘ᭡ाኘ᭡ा(ኘ᭡ की भा(cid:21)नाओं का आदर करते हुए से(cid:21)ाኘ᭡ोजकों ने ्ቦी मोइ्ቔा के वि(cid:21)रू्ቍ केस्को के काኘ᭡ा*(ኘ᭡ ्ሺाप सं० ኘ᭡ाचि&का सं० 12018/03/421 विदनांक

13.05.10 ्ቛारा आदेशिशत जाँ& (cid:21)ापस (ेते हुए काኘ᭡ा*(ኘ᭡ ्ሺाप सं पर आदेशिशत जाँ& के विनण*ኘ᭡ को विनरस्त करने का विनण*ኘ᭡ लि(ኘ᭡ा है विकन्तु उ्ሹ काኘ᭡ा*(ኘ᭡ 0 12018/03/391

06.05.10 के विबन्दु विदनांक 03 ्ሺाप के विबन्दु मोइ्ቔा ने सिजस अ(cid:21)चिध में कोई काኘ᭡* सम्पाविदत नहीं विकኘ᭡ा है उस अ(cid:21)चिध में उन्हें काኘ᭡* नहीं 01 ए(cid:21)ं 02 पर लि(ኘ᭡े गኘ᭡े विनण*ኘ᭡ पर से(cid:21)ाኘ᭡ोजक अचिडग है क्ኘ᭡ोंविक ्ቦी तो (cid:21)ेतन नहीं के सिस्ቍान्त पर कोई (cid:21)ेतनाविद का भुगतान अनुमन्ኘ᭡ नहीं होगा। मा० उ्ሴ न्ኘ᭡ाኘ᭡ा(ኘ᭡ ्ቛारा ኘ᭡ाचि&का सं . 43415/10 में पारिरत विनण*ኘ᭡ विदनांक

27.07.10 के अनुपा(न में ्ቦी मोइ्ቔा मीटर इन्सपेक्टर के ्ቚचित(cid:21)ेदन विदनांक

02.08.2010 का त्቎ुसार विनस्तारण विकኘ᭡ा जाता है।” 4 of 6

6. The aforesaid order dated 21.09.2010 is now being challenged before this Court by way of present writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner has not able to dispute that order dated 06.05.2010 were never challenged, wherein claim of petitioner was already rejected on ground of ‘No Work No Pay’. The petitioner has not come up with the clean hands in earlier round of litigation as well as in present round of litigation that claim of petitioner was already rejected.

8. The respondents have also not disclosed the said order in first round of litigation, therefore, a direction was passed by this Court by an order dated 27.07.2010 to consider the claim of petitioner as referred above in impugned order dated

21.09.2010.

9. The respondents took note of earlier order dated

06.05.2010 and that claim for back wages was already rejected, therefore, it was not reviewed. The judgments placed by learned counsel for petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of present case due to above legal impediment and that petitioner is not a bonafide litigant.

10. In the aforesaid circumstances, since basic order dated

06.05.2010, whereby petitioner was reinstated and claim for back wages was rejected was never challenged and, therefore, has attained finality, therefore, the subsequent order dated

27.07.2010, which is impugned in present Writ Petition cannot be set aside or interfered.

11. The Court also takes note of a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mahadeo Krishna Bank :2025 INSC 218, that “ordering back wages to be paid to a dismissal employee upon 5 of 6 his dismissal being set aside by a Court of law is not an automatic relief, grant of full or partial back has to be preceded by a minor fact finding exercise by the Industrial adjudication/court seized of the proceedings” i.e. whether during investigation employee was gainful employed or not and in present case, no such pleading is pleaded, therefore, also no case of payment of back wages is made out. Accordingly writ petition is dismissed. September 23, 2025 P. Pandey (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 6 of 6

Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Usha Kiran, learned counsel for respondents.

2. The petitioner, a Meter Inspector in Electricity Distribution Divison, Govind Nagar, Kanpur, has approached earlier this Court when his services were dispensed with by way of a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12018 of 2003. The said Writ Petition was allowed by an order dated 21.02.2009, whereby he was reinstated, however, issue of fresh inquiry and of back wages was kept open and for reference its relevant part is reproduced hereinafter :- “The position which emerges in the present case is that after earlier order of punishment had been passed on 21.11.2002, petitioner joined his duties on 07.12.2002 and thereafter, petitioner disappeared, qua which complaint was made on 15.01.2003 and 25.02.2003, mentioning therein that petitioner was not taking interest in his work. After said complaint had been made taking into account the past conduct of the petitioner, the Managing Director of KESA proceeded to pass the impugned order on 28.02.2003. Said order cannot be sustained, inasmuch as once services of petitioner were being dispensed with on charges that he was not taking interest in his work, then holding of inquiry was condition precedent, instead of proceeding to pass order dispensing with his services, as such order dated 28.02.2003 cannot be sustained. Consequently, present writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. Impugned order dated 28.02.2003 is quashed. However, passing of this order will not prevent the respondents from undertaking disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law, and in respect of back wages as well as in respect of subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner, decision shall be taken by the authorities concerned in accordance with law. “

3. In aforesaid circumstances, the respondents have passed an order dated 06.05.2010, whereby petitioner was reinstated but claim for back wages and subsistence allowance was rejected on principle of ‘No Work No Pay’, taking note that he has already crossed age of superannuataion. For reference the said order is reproduced hereinafter :- “्ቦी सुजीत कुमार मोइ्ቔा, मीटर इन्सपेक्टर वि(cid:21)्ቕुत वि(cid:21)तरण खण्ड गोवि(cid:21)न्दनगर, केस्को कानपुर के ्ቛारा अपने काኘ᭡" में रूचि& न लि(ኘ᭡े जाने तथा काኘ᭡* से अनुपቝኌस्थत रहने के कारण उनकी से(cid:21)ाኘ᭡ें केस्को के काኘ᭡ा*(ኘ᭡ ्ሺाप सं० 184/एम० डी०/कैम्प/03 विदनांक

28.02.03 के ्ቛारा तत्का( ्ቚभा(cid:21) से समा्቎ कर दी गኘ᭡ी थी। ्ቦी मोइ्ቔा ने अपनी से(cid:21)ासमावि्቎ के उ्ሹ आदेश को मा० उ्ሴ न्ኘ᭡ाኘ᭡ा(ኘ᭡ में ኘ᭡ाचि&का सं0 12018/03 विन(cid:21)ेशिशत कर &ुनौती दी। मा० उ्ሴ न्ኘ᭡ाኘ᭡ा(ኘ᭡ ्ቛारा ኘ᭡ाचि&का सं० 12018/03 में पारिरत आदेश विदनांक 21.12.09 के अनुपा(न में ्ቦी एस०के० मोइ्ቔा, मीटर इन्सपेक्टर को विदनांक

28.02.03 से से(cid:21)ा में विनम्नलि(लिखत शत" के ्ቚचितबन्धाधीन पुनस्था*विपत विकኘ᭡ा जाता है:- 1- ्ቦी एस० के० मोइ्ቔा , मीटर इन्सपेक्टर ्ቛारा 58 (cid:21)्ቧ* की अचिध(cid:21)्ቧ*ता आኘ᭡ु पूण* कर (ेने पर उन्हें विदनांक

30.06.06 से से(cid:21)ाविन(cid:21)ृ्ቈ हुआ माना जाए । 2- ्ቦी एस० के० मोइ्ቔा , मीटर इन्सपेक्टर ने अपनी से(cid:21)ासमावि्቎ की चितशिथ से से(cid:21)ाविन(cid:21)ृलि्ቈ की चितशिथ

30.06.06 तक कोई वि(cid:21)भागीኘ᭡ काኘ᭡* सम्पाविदत नहीं विकኘ᭡ा है , अतः उन्हें " काम नहीं , तो (cid:21)ेतन नहीं ", के सिस्ቍान्त के आधार पर उ्ሹ अ(cid:21)चिध के (cid:21)ेतनाविद का भुगतान अनुमन्ኘ᭡ नहीं होगा। 2 of 6 3- ्ቦी एस० के० मोइ्ቔा, मीटर इन्सपेक्टर की से(cid:21)ाኘ᭡ें सिजस आधार पर समा्቎ की गኘ᭡ी थी उसकी जाँ& ्ቦी अरुण कुमार, अधी्ቌण अशिभኘ᭡न्ता (वि(cid:21)०) वि्ቛतीኘ᭡, फज(गंज, केस्को के माध्ኘ᭡म से कराकर आ(cid:21)श्ኘ᭡क काኘ᭡*(cid:21)ाही की जाए ।”

4. Undisputedly, the petitioner instead to challenge the aforesaid order and without disclosing said order, has approached this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition No.43415 of 2010. The Writ Petition was disposed of by an order dated 27.07.2010 with a direction to consider the issue of back wages. For reference, said order is reproduced hereinafter :- “It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the services of the petitioner were terminated under the order of the Managing Director, Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Ltd., Kanpur Nagar dated 28th February, 2003. The order was challenged by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12018 of 2003. The writ petition was allowed under the order dated 21st December, 2009 and the order of termination has been set aside. However, it has been provided that respondents would be at liberty to undertake the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law and in respect of back wages as well as in respect of subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner, decision shall be taken by the authorities concerned in accordance with law. It appears that the petitioner did not inform the Court that on the date the writ petition was decided, he had already retired from service i.e. in the year 2006 and it is in this background that the employer was permitted to . However, nothing further conclude the is required to be added on that score, inasmuch as the Court left it open to the authorities to examine the issue with regard to the permanent of back wages and the other benefits as well as in respect of subsistence allowance in accordance with law. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no.2 to take appropriate decision in the matter of petitioner as per the directions issued by this Court under order dated 21st December, 2009 referred to above at the earliest possible preferably within eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. ” departmental proceedings

5. In pursuance of above order, claim of petitioner was again considered and was again rejected by an order dated

21.09.2010 that issue of back wages and subsistence allowance 3 of 6 was already considered and rejected when petitioner was reinstated by an order dated 06.05.2010, which remained unchallenged and therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent to review it. For reference relevant part of aforesaid order dated 21.09.2010 is reproduced hereinafter :- “्ቦी सुजीत कुमार मोइ्ቔा, मीटर इन्सपेक्टर, वि(cid:21)्ቕुत वि(cid:21)तरण खण्ड तथा काኘ᭡* से गोवि(cid:21)न्दनगर, केस्को ्ቛारा अपने काኘ᭡* में रूचि& न लि(ኘ᭡े जाने तथा काኘ᭡* से अनुपቝኌस्थत रहने के कारण उनकी से(cid:21)ाኘ᭡ें केस्को के काኘ᭡ा*(ኘ᭡ ्ሺाप सं० 184/एम०डी०/कैम्प / 03 विदनांक 29.02.03 ्ቛारा तत्का( ्ቚभा(cid:21) से समा्቎ कर दी गኘ᭡ी थी । ्ቦी मोइ्ቔा ने अपनी से(cid:21)ा समावि्቎ के उ्ሹ आदेश के वि(cid:21)रू्ቍ मा० उ्ሴ न्ኘ᭡ाኘ᭡ा(ኘ᭡ , इ(ाहाबाद के सम्ቌ ኘ᭡ाचि&का सं० 12018/03 विन(cid:21)ेशिशत कर &ुनौती दी। मा० उ्ሴ न्ኘ᭡ाኘ᭡ा(ኘ᭡ में (cid:21)ादी ्ቛारा ኘ᭡ोसिजत ኘ᭡ाचि&का सं0 12018/03 में पारिरत आदेश विदनांक 21.12.09 के अनुपा(न में केस्को मुख्ኘ᭡ा(ኘ᭡ के काኘ᭡ा*(ኘ᭡ ्ሺाप सं0 12018/03/391 विदनांक

06.05.10 ्ቛारा इसका अनुपा(न विकኘ᭡ा गኘ᭡ा ए(cid:21)ं मा० उ्ሴ न्ኘ᭡ाኘ᭡ा(ኘ᭡ , इ(ाहाबाद के विनदTशानुसार वि(cid:21)भागीኘ᭡ जाँ& विकኘ᭡े जाने का विनण*ኘ᭡ लि(ኘ᭡ा गኘ᭡ा ए(cid:21)ं काኘ᭡ा*(ኘ᭡ ्ሺाप सं० ኘ᭡ाचि&का सं० 12018/03/421 विदनांक

13.05.10 ्ቛारा ्ቦी अरुण कुमार , अधी्ቌण अशिभኘ᭡न्ता ( वि(cid:21)० ), वि्ቛतीኘ᭡ , फज(गंज । , केस्को को जाँ& अचिधकारी नाविमत विकኘ᭡ा गኘ᭡ा काኘ᭡ा*(ኘ᭡ ्ሺाप सं० 12018/03/391 विदनांक 06.05.10 ए(cid:21)ं काኘ᭡ा*(ኘ᭡ ्ሺाप सं० ኘ᭡ाचि&का सं० 12018/03/421 विदनांक 13.05.10 की ्ቚचित उनके आ(cid:21)ासीኘ᭡ पते पर भेजी गई जो इस विटप्पणी के साथ (cid:21)ाविपस आ गई विक "घर में ता(ा बन्द" है । उ्ሹ काኘ᭡ा*(ኘ᭡ ्ሺाप की ्ቚचितኘ᭡ाँ वि(cid:21)शे्ቧ प्ቔ(cid:21)ाहक के साथ उनके आ(cid:21)ास पर भेजे गኘ᭡े तब भी ता(ा बन्द विम(ा। अतः दैविनक जागरण ए(cid:21)ं अमर उजा(ा में ्ቅमशः विदनांक 08.07.10 ए(cid:21)ं विदनांक 08.07.10 को सू&ना ्ቚकाशिशत की गኘ᭡ी। इसी मध्ኘ᭡ ्ቦी मोइ्ቔा ने पुनः मा० उ्ሴ न्ኘ᭡ाኘ᭡ा(ኘ᭡ इ(ाहाबाद के सम्ቌ ኘ᭡ाचि&का सं0 43415/10 ኘ᭡ोसिजत की ए(cid:21)ं (cid:21)ेतन भ्ቈो की माँग की । मा० उ्ሴ न्ኘ᭡ाኘ᭡ा(ኘ᭡ के सं्ሺान में (cid:21)ादी ्ቛारा ኘ᭡ह तथ्ኘ᭡ नहीं (ाኘ᭡ा गኘ᭡ा था विक (cid:21)ह से(cid:21)ाविन(cid:21)ृ्ቈ हो &ुका है सिजस कारण मा० उ्ሴ न्ኘ᭡ाኘ᭡ा(ኘ᭡ में से(cid:21)ाኘ᭡ोजकों को जाँ& सम्पाविदत करने हेतु स्(cid:21)तं्ቔ छोड़ा था। इस सम्बन्ध में मा० उ्ሴ न्ኘ᭡ाኘ᭡ा(ኘ᭡ की भा(cid:21)नाओं का आदर करते हुए से(cid:21)ाኘ᭡ोजकों ने ्ቦी मोइ्ቔा के वि(cid:21)रू्ቍ केस्को के काኘ᭡ा*(ኘ᭡ ्ሺाप सं० ኘ᭡ाचि&का सं० 12018/03/421 विदनांक

13.05.10 ्ቛारा आदेशिशत जाँ& (cid:21)ापस (ेते हुए काኘ᭡ा*(ኘ᭡ ्ሺाप सं पर आदेशिशत जाँ& के विनण*ኘ᭡ को विनरस्त करने का विनण*ኘ᭡ लि(ኘ᭡ा है विकन्तु उ्ሹ काኘ᭡ा*(ኘ᭡ 0 12018/03/391

06.05.10 के विबन्दु विदनांक 03 ्ሺाप के विबन्दु मोइ्ቔा ने सिजस अ(cid:21)चिध में कोई काኘ᭡* सम्पाविदत नहीं विकኘ᭡ा है उस अ(cid:21)चिध में उन्हें काኘ᭡* नहीं 01 ए(cid:21)ं 02 पर लि(ኘ᭡े गኘ᭡े विनण*ኘ᭡ पर से(cid:21)ाኘ᭡ोजक अचिडग है क्ኘ᭡ोंविक ्ቦी तो (cid:21)ेतन नहीं के सिस्ቍान्त पर कोई (cid:21)ेतनाविद का भुगतान अनुमन्ኘ᭡ नहीं होगा। मा० उ्ሴ न्ኘ᭡ाኘ᭡ा(ኘ᭡ ्ቛारा ኘ᭡ाचि&का सं . 43415/10 में पारिरत विनण*ኘ᭡ विदनांक

27.07.10 के अनुपा(न में ्ቦी मोइ्ቔा मीटर इन्सपेक्टर के ्ቚचित(cid:21)ेदन विदनांक

02.08.2010 का त्቎ुसार विनस्तारण विकኘ᭡ा जाता है।” 4 of 6

6. The aforesaid order dated 21.09.2010 is now being challenged before this Court by way of present writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner has not able to dispute that order dated 06.05.2010 were never challenged, wherein claim of petitioner was already rejected on ground of ‘No Work No Pay’. The petitioner has not come up with the clean hands in earlier round of litigation as well as in present round of litigation that claim of petitioner was already rejected.

8. The respondents have also not disclosed the said order in first round of litigation, therefore, a direction was passed by this Court by an order dated 27.07.2010 to consider the claim of petitioner as referred above in impugned order dated

21.09.2010.

9. The respondents took note of earlier order dated

06.05.2010 and that claim for back wages was already rejected, therefore, it was not reviewed. The judgments placed by learned counsel for petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of present case due to above legal impediment and that petitioner is not a bonafide litigant.

10. In the aforesaid circumstances, since basic order dated

06.05.2010, whereby petitioner was reinstated and claim for back wages was rejected was never challenged and, therefore, has attained finality, therefore, the subsequent order dated

27.07.2010, which is impugned in present Writ Petition cannot be set aside or interfered.

11. The Court also takes note of a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mahadeo Krishna Bank :2025 INSC 218, that “ordering back wages to be paid to a dismissal employee upon 5 of 6 his dismissal being set aside by a Court of law is not an automatic relief, grant of full or partial back has to be preceded by a minor fact finding exercise by the Industrial adjudication/court seized of the proceedings” i.e. whether during investigation employee was gainful employed or not and in present case, no such pleading is pleaded, therefore, also no case of payment of back wages is made out. Accordingly writ petition is dismissed. September 23, 2025 P. Pandey (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 6 of 6