Ganga Prasad vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 4264 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 35
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1090 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Ganga Prasad
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

In pursuance to the previous order passed by this Court, Sri Pranesh Dutt Tripathi, Advocate has received instructions and handed over a copy of the same to the Court which is taken on record.

The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that he has not been paid his salary from July 2015 to November 2015. It has been stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was forcibly retired on 30.06.2015, even though under the relevant Services Rules, he was entitled for extension of service till 31.03.2016. It has been stated that the petitioner was subsequently allowed to join but was paid salary only from December, 2015 to March 2016. It has been stated that the salary of the petitioner from July 2015 to November 2015 has not been made on the principle of no work no pay.

In Writ A No. 33360 of 2017, this Court vide its judgment and order dated 19.08.2017 had set aside the orders passed by the authorities refusing salary to similarly situated persons on the principle of 'no work no pay' and held that said persons were entitled to their salary even for the period for which they did not work because of being forcibly retired and having been wrongly denied extension of service. It has been argued that for the said reason, the petitioner was entitled to his salary from July 2015 to November 2015. It has been further stated that non-payment of salary to the petitioner has also adversely affected the computation of his pension.

The respondents pray for and are granted eight weeks to file their counter affidavit. Petitioner may file his rejoinder affidavit within four weeks thereafter.

List after expiry of the aforesaid period.

In an identical matter in Writ A No. 4547 of 2020, this Court has issued an ad interim mandamus in favour of the petitioners. The Petitioner in these circumstances, is also entitled to a similar order and an ad-interim mandamus.

Let an ad interim mandamus be issued to the District Basic Education Officer, Bareilly to pay salary to the petitioner due to him from 01.07.2015 till 30.11.2015 along with appropriate increment due to him for the aforesaid period within three weeks and to compute his pension in accordance with the revised salary of the petitioner or to show cause by filing a counter affidavit why the mandamus should not be made absolute.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the District Basic Education Officer, Bareilly within forty eight hours for compliance of the order.

Order Date :- 22.3.2021

Ashish Pd.