Ex. Head Constable Pti Sharda Mani ... vs State Of ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3021 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 33497 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Ex. Head Constable Pti Sharda Mani Tripathi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Throu.Prin.Secy.Department Of Home Lko.And Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhir Kumar Misra,Durgesh Kumar Maurya
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

On his alleged absence without leave, enquiry against the petitioner was held and he was terminated by order dated 3.3.2008. The said order was challenged before this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.15231 of 2008, which was allowed by order dated 15.7.2011. Operative portion of the said order reads:

"I, therefore, allow this writ petition, set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. It is also ordered that all the consequential benefits to the petitioner shall be released in his favour"

Thus, this Court set aside the punishment order and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and also to pay him all consequential benefits. Thereafter, petitioner was reinstated, but with regard to consequential benefits, matter was referred to the State Government. A notice was given to the petitioner as to why on the basis of no work no pay, he should not be paid any salary for the period of absence. On the basis of the said notice, respondent no.4-SSP, Lucknow by the impugned order dated 29.8.2012 directed that petitioner is not entitled for salary for the period of absence.

The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 23.4.2019, whereby salary of the petitioner is reduced by treating his absence from 26.7.2003 to 7.10.2005 as leave without pay, and the order dated 13.5.2019 passed on the basis of order dated 23.4.2019 reducing the pension of the petitioner on the basis of recalculated salary.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 15.7.2011 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.15231 of 2008. When the Court directed that petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits and the same are to be released in his favour, it was not open for the respondents to revisit the said issue.

Learned Standing Counsel states that during the period for which salary is not being paid, he was not on duty.

The petitioner was terminated on the said ground that he was not present for the aforesaid period. This Court considered the said aspect by judgment and order dated 15.7.2011 and set aside the termination order as well as directed the respondents to pay him all consequential benefits. The said order of this Court was not challenged by the State authorities, hence the said order is accepted by them. Once it is accepted, it was not open for the State authorities to sit over an order of this Court.

Hence, the orders dated 29.8.2012, 23.4.2019 and 13.5.2019 cannot stand and are set aside. The respondents are directed to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner and calculate the salary and pension of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date, a certified copy of this order is placed before respondent no.4.

The writ petition is allowed.

.

[Vivek Chaudhary,J.]

Order Date :- 30.1.2023

Sachin