RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 09.11.2009 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Varanasi.

(2.) FROM the averments in the writ petition it appears that the services of the petitioner were terminated on 14.10.1977." Aggrieved by the said order he approached the U.P. Public Services Tribunal and his claim petition was dismissed by order dated 19.01.1998." Challenge was given to the said order in Writ Petition No.13755 of 1998." A similar writ petition was filed by one Vijay Bahadur Singh being Writ Petition No.46061 of 1993, which was allowed by judgment dated 26.09.1997. In that case also the services of the said Vijay Bahadur Singh had been terminated and the learned Single Judge of the High Court by his judgment dated 26.09.1997 had been pleased to quash the termination order and has directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages with retrospective effect. The petitioner's Writ Petition No.13755 of 1998 was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 04.11.1999 in terms of the judgment dated 26.09.1997 and the termination order dated 14.10.1977 and the order of the Tribunal dated 19.01.1998 were quashed and the petitioner was reinstated in service. The petitioner joined his duty on the post of Constable in the Armed Police, Reserve Police Lines, Bareilly on 21.06.2000. The claim of the petitioner for arrears of salary for this period has been rejected by the impugned order dated 09.11.2009 on the ground that the same is not permissible on the principle of 'no work no pay' in view of the Government Order No.5207/6 -Pu -2 -2003 -1600(30) 98 dated 15.04.2004." Besides this no other reason has been given. The question is that as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the salary during the intervening period from the time when his services have been terminated from 14.10.1977 to 20.06.2000.

(3.) I have heard Sri Subhash Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.