Anil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs: "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Deputy Director of Education 7th Region, Gorakhpur to consider for granting retiral benefits and pension to the petitioner as class-IV employee of Baba Indramani Janta Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Teekar, District Deoria; ii. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria to release the retiral benefits to the petitioner which has been deducted from his salary till 2010 as class-IV employee of Baba Indramani Janta Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Teekar, District Deoria and whatever amount is payable to the petitioner the same may be paid to him."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was implicated in a criminal case registered at Case Crime No.99 of 1981, under Sections 147, 302 read with Section 149 IPC and 307 read with Section 149 IPC, Police Station Barhaj, District Deoria and he was detained in jail. While he was in jail, the respondents have not initiated any disciplinary proceedings nor suspended his services. The petitioner was convicted by the trial court vide order dated 12.11.1981 in the aforesaid criminal case. Consequent to release on bail in Criminal Appeal No.2701 of 1981 filed before this Court, he joined his services. Thereafter, the said criminal appeal was partly allowed by this Court on 29.02.2010. The petitioner preferred 2 WRIA No. 27163 of 2018 Special Leave Petition against the judgment and order dated 29.02.2010 before Hon'ble the Apex Court which was dismissed. Though the petitioner's salaries have been released but pensionary benefits have not been released to him as he is entitled for the same. Consequent upon serving out sentence awarded to him, the petitioner was released from jail in May, 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner moved representation for release of pension and post retiremental benefits but the same has not been considered by the respondents so far. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. As the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on order passed by this Court in Writ-A No.11555 of 2021 (Anil Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others) on 13.03.2024, wherein an identical issue is filed for consideration and this Court has passed the following order:- "10. In the absence of any departmental proceeding being drawn, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that petitioner was restrained from discharging duties on account of his detention in jail in connection with a criminal case a circumstance to be taken as beyond his control and his innocence ultimately being proved by way of acquittal in the said criminal case, he should not be penalized.

11. The principle of 'no work no pay' could have been attracted if petitioner had enjoyed bail in criminal case and had been merely kept under suspension but this is not the case either. Petitioner remained in detention until he was acquitted. There was no question of petitioner giving any certificate that he was not gainfully employed anywhere during the period he was under suspension. One must draw difference between an under-trial on bail and convicted person in jail.

12. In the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner I find that the some observations regarding payment of salary for the period during the employee was under detention, but there was a decree of trial court which is not a case here. In principle petitioner might have been simply acquitted but petitioner was not responsible in any manner for not discharging his duties in the department.

13. There is nothing in the counter affidavit to demonstrate that even otherwise the conduct of the petitioner has not been good and fair while discharging his official duties. The averments raised in the counter affidavit are quite sketchy as they only refer to the criminal case and detention of petitioner in jail.

14. On the back wages to the petitioner for the period he remained suspended due to detention in jail and upon his reinstatement by revoking his suspension for acquittal in the criminal case, I find support of my view in an authority of Supreme Court in the case of Raj Narain v. Union of India and others (2019) 5 SCC 809 in which an identical issue was dealt with. In the said case even though departmental inquiry was 3 WRIA No. 27163 of 2018 set up but was later on dropped and upon acquittal the employee was reinstated revoking his suspension order. Vide paragraphs 7 and 8 the Court held thus:- "7. The point that remains to be considered is whether the appellant is entitled to payment of full wages between 1979 and 1987. The appellant was placed under suspension on 23-10-1979 and his suspension was revoked on 21-10-1987. An interesting development took place during the interregnum by which the disciplinary proceedings were dropped on 21-3-1983. It is clear from the record that the appellant was the one who was seeking postponement of the departmental enquiry in view of the pendency of criminal case. The order of suspension was in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. By virtue of the disciplinary proceedings being dropped, the appellant becomes entitled to claim full salary for the period from the date of his suspension till the date of closure of the departmental enquiry. Thereafter, the respondents took four years to reinstate him by revoking his suspension. The order of suspension dated 23-10-1979 came to an end on 21-3-1983 which is the date on which disciplinary proceedings were dropped. The appellant ought to have been reinstated immediately thereafter unless a fresh order was passed, placing him under suspension during the pendency of the criminal trial which did not happen. Ultimately, the appellant was reinstated by an order dated 21-10-1987 by revocation of the order of suspension. Though, technically, the learned Additional Solicitor General is right in submitting that the impugned judgment does not even refer to the IA, we are not inclined to remit the matter to the High Court at this stage for fresh consideration of this point. We hold that the appellant is entitled for full wages from 23-10-1979 to 21- 10-1987 after adjustment of the amounts already paid towards subsistence allowance.

8. For the reasons mentioned above, we approve the judgment of the High Court by holding that the appellant shall be entitled for back wages only from the date of acquittal on 31-8-2001, till the date of his reinstatement on 20-1-2003. Further, the appellant shall be entitled to full salary from 23-10-1979 to 21-10-1987."

15. I find petitioner's case to be on a much better footing as he was only suspended for detention in jail without there being any inquiry in contemplation and his suspension was revoked immediately upon his acquittal in the criminal case and no appeal was preferred against the judgment of acquittal.

16. In view of the above, therefore, the Court is of the considered view that respondents are not justified in denying salary to the petitioner applying the principle of 'no work no pay'."

5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, based on the assertions made in the counter affidavit, has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Class-IV employee on 01.09.1976 in the Baba Indramani Janta Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Teekar, Deoria. The Institution was admitted to grant-in-aid, therefore, the provisions of U.P. Act No.24 of 1971 4 WRIA No. 27163 of 2018 and U.P. Act No.5 of 1982 as amended Rules 1998 are applicable. As criminal case was registered against the petitioner at Case Crime No.99 of 1981, under Sections 147, 302 read with Section 149 IPC and 307 read with Section 149 IPC, Police Station Barhaj, District Deoria, therefore, he was detained in jail. Since, he did not work during the period he was detained in jail, he is not entitled to any pensionary benefits. To support the contention, learned Standing Counsel has also relied on judgment of this Court in Writ- A No.41555 of 2009 (Kalyan Prasad Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Others).

6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also on perusal of the order of this Court in Anil Kumar Singh (supra) it reveals that this Court has followed the principle laid down by Apex Court in Raj Narain V. Union of India and Others (2019) 5 SCC 809 and as observed by Hon'ble Apex Court, the writ petition was allowed by granting the monetary benefits to the person who was detained in jail and subsequently served out sentence awarded by the trial court. Hence, in view of the observations made by the Apex Court as well as the order passed by this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Singh (supra), this writ petition is also disposed of in same terms. October 9, 2025 (Donadi Ramesh,J.) RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs: "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Deputy Director of Education 7th Region, Gorakhpur to consider for granting retiral benefits and pension to the petitioner as class-IV employee of Baba Indramani Janta Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Teekar, District Deoria; ii. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria to release the retiral benefits to the petitioner which has been deducted from his salary till 2010 as class-IV employee of Baba Indramani Janta Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Teekar, District Deoria and whatever amount is payable to the petitioner the same may be paid to him."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was implicated in a criminal case registered at Case Crime No.99 of 1981, under Sections 147, 302 read with Section 149 IPC and 307 read with Section 149 IPC, Police Station Barhaj, District Deoria and he was detained in jail. While he was in jail, the respondents have not initiated any disciplinary proceedings nor suspended his services. The petitioner was convicted by the trial court vide order dated 12.11.1981 in the aforesaid criminal case. Consequent to release on bail in Criminal Appeal No.2701 of 1981 filed before this Court, he joined his services. Thereafter, the said criminal appeal was partly allowed by this Court on 29.02.2010. The petitioner preferred 2 WRIA No. 27163 of 2018 Special Leave Petition against the judgment and order dated 29.02.2010 before Hon'ble the Apex Court which was dismissed. Though the petitioner's salaries have been released but pensionary benefits have not been released to him as he is entitled for the same. Consequent upon serving out sentence awarded to him, the petitioner was released from jail in May, 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner moved representation for release of pension and post retiremental benefits but the same has not been considered by the respondents so far. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. As the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on order passed by this Court in Writ-A No.11555 of 2021 (Anil Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others) on 13.03.2024, wherein an identical issue is filed for consideration and this Court has passed the following order:- "10. In the absence of any departmental proceeding being drawn, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that petitioner was restrained from discharging duties on account of his detention in jail in connection with a criminal case a circumstance to be taken as beyond his control and his innocence ultimately being proved by way of acquittal in the said criminal case, he should not be penalized.

11. The principle of 'no work no pay' could have been attracted if petitioner had enjoyed bail in criminal case and had been merely kept under suspension but this is not the case either. Petitioner remained in detention until he was acquitted. There was no question of petitioner giving any certificate that he was not gainfully employed anywhere during the period he was under suspension. One must draw difference between an under-trial on bail and convicted person in jail.

12. In the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner I find that the some observations regarding payment of salary for the period during the employee was under detention, but there was a decree of trial court which is not a case here. In principle petitioner might have been simply acquitted but petitioner was not responsible in any manner for not discharging his duties in the department.

13. There is nothing in the counter affidavit to demonstrate that even otherwise the conduct of the petitioner has not been good and fair while discharging his official duties. The averments raised in the counter affidavit are quite sketchy as they only refer to the criminal case and detention of petitioner in jail.

14. On the back wages to the petitioner for the period he remained suspended due to detention in jail and upon his reinstatement by revoking his suspension for acquittal in the criminal case, I find support of my view in an authority of Supreme Court in the case of Raj Narain v. Union of India and others (2019) 5 SCC 809 in which an identical issue was dealt with. In the said case even though departmental inquiry was 3 WRIA No. 27163 of 2018 set up but was later on dropped and upon acquittal the employee was reinstated revoking his suspension order. Vide paragraphs 7 and 8 the Court held thus:- "7. The point that remains to be considered is whether the appellant is entitled to payment of full wages between 1979 and 1987. The appellant was placed under suspension on 23-10-1979 and his suspension was revoked on 21-10-1987. An interesting development took place during the interregnum by which the disciplinary proceedings were dropped on 21-3-1983. It is clear from the record that the appellant was the one who was seeking postponement of the departmental enquiry in view of the pendency of criminal case. The order of suspension was in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. By virtue of the disciplinary proceedings being dropped, the appellant becomes entitled to claim full salary for the period from the date of his suspension till the date of closure of the departmental enquiry. Thereafter, the respondents took four years to reinstate him by revoking his suspension. The order of suspension dated 23-10-1979 came to an end on 21-3-1983 which is the date on which disciplinary proceedings were dropped. The appellant ought to have been reinstated immediately thereafter unless a fresh order was passed, placing him under suspension during the pendency of the criminal trial which did not happen. Ultimately, the appellant was reinstated by an order dated 21-10-1987 by revocation of the order of suspension. Though, technically, the learned Additional Solicitor General is right in submitting that the impugned judgment does not even refer to the IA, we are not inclined to remit the matter to the High Court at this stage for fresh consideration of this point. We hold that the appellant is entitled for full wages from 23-10-1979 to 21- 10-1987 after adjustment of the amounts already paid towards subsistence allowance.

8. For the reasons mentioned above, we approve the judgment of the High Court by holding that the appellant shall be entitled for back wages only from the date of acquittal on 31-8-2001, till the date of his reinstatement on 20-1-2003. Further, the appellant shall be entitled to full salary from 23-10-1979 to 21-10-1987."

15. I find petitioner's case to be on a much better footing as he was only suspended for detention in jail without there being any inquiry in contemplation and his suspension was revoked immediately upon his acquittal in the criminal case and no appeal was preferred against the judgment of acquittal.

16. In view of the above, therefore, the Court is of the considered view that respondents are not justified in denying salary to the petitioner applying the principle of 'no work no pay'."

5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, based on the assertions made in the counter affidavit, has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Class-IV employee on 01.09.1976 in the Baba Indramani Janta Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Teekar, Deoria. The Institution was admitted to grant-in-aid, therefore, the provisions of U.P. Act No.24 of 1971 4 WRIA No. 27163 of 2018 and U.P. Act No.5 of 1982 as amended Rules 1998 are applicable. As criminal case was registered against the petitioner at Case Crime No.99 of 1981, under Sections 147, 302 read with Section 149 IPC and 307 read with Section 149 IPC, Police Station Barhaj, District Deoria, therefore, he was detained in jail. Since, he did not work during the period he was detained in jail, he is not entitled to any pensionary benefits. To support the contention, learned Standing Counsel has also relied on judgment of this Court in Writ- A No.41555 of 2009 (Kalyan Prasad Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Others).

6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also on perusal of the order of this Court in Anil Kumar Singh (supra) it reveals that this Court has followed the principle laid down by Apex Court in Raj Narain V. Union of India and Others (2019) 5 SCC 809 and as observed by Hon'ble Apex Court, the writ petition was allowed by granting the monetary benefits to the person who was detained in jail and subsequently served out sentence awarded by the trial court. Hence, in view of the observations made by the Apex Court as well as the order passed by this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Singh (supra), this writ petition is also disposed of in same terms. October 9, 2025 (Donadi Ramesh,J.) RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad