SURENDRA SINGH Vs. RENUKA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE allegation in this contempt application is that judgments and orders dated 19.9.2008 and 24.10.2008 have been violated. Through the first judgment respondents in the writ petition were directed to decide the question of payment of retiral dues. THE second order was passed regarding arrears of salary from 1973 to 1999. Petitioner was a constable in Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary (U.P.P.A.C.). He was suspected to be involved in P.A.C. Revolt of 1973 however, no criminal case was launched against him. As his services were temporary hence he was removed from service after payment of one month's salary. He filed writ petition which was decided on 8.9.1999 (Writ petition no.35437 of 1998). Through the said order it was directed that in case petitioner was not convicted and no departmental proceedings were pending against him then he should be reinstated. Regarding back wages etc. it was directed that matter should be considered by the Government after it had taken a policy decision. Through the second order dated 24.10.2008 it was directed that ; "In case the similarly situated persons have been paid salary for the period they remained out of job, the petitioners shall also be provided the same benefit as per order aforesaid." In Writ petition no.43303 of 2004 - Hori Lal vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 23.3.2009 I have held that those P.A.C. constables whose services were terminated in the year 1973 on the ground of suspected involvement in P.A.C. revolt, and who were afterwards reinstated under orders of this court should not be paid any back wages/salary on the principle of 'no work no pay' in case their services were terminated on the ground that they were temporary. Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J in Shiv Jagat Pandey vs. State 2007 (3) E.S.C. 1752 has also taken similar view. It has been held in the said authority that in view of Government order dated 15.4.2004 and several authorities of the Supreme Court those P.A.C. constables whose services were terminated in 1973, on the ground that they were temporary, and who were reinstated after about 25 years, under orders of High Court were not entitled to any back salary. In the order dated 24.10.2008 read with the order dated 1.10.2008 it is directed that if similarly situated persons are paid salary then salary for the non-working period should also be paid to the applicant. As in the above cases it has categorically been held that such constables are not entitled to get their back salary hence it cannot be said that all similarly situated persons have been granted back salaries. Some such constables have been illegally granted back salaries due to collusion of the authorities and fraud played by recipient constables and the authorities. Accordingly, in my opinion no contempt is made out in respect of the second order dated 24.10.2008 read with the order dated 1.10.2008. Issue notice to the opposite parties only in respect of order dated 19.9.2008 passed by this court in writ petition no.44583 of 2001 - Annexure-8 to the writ petition. Opposite parties need not appear in person. In case matter has been decided then affidavit of any of the opposite parties or any subordinate officer/official may be filed annexing therewith copy of decision. However, if matter has not yet been decided then opposite parties must file their personal affidavits. Affidavit must be filed within four weeks from the date of service. List after expiry of the aforesaid period.