Allahabad High Court
Ram Ji Ram vs State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. ... on 12 May, 2023
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:32925
Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6171 of 2015
Petitioner :- Ram Ji Ram
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Chandra Tiwari,Bhanu Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 06.06.2013 passed by the opposite party no.3 as contained in Annexure No.1 respectively to this writ petition.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the opposite parties, specially opposite party no.3 to make the payment of back wages/arrears of salary of the dismissal period from 08.09.1973 to 31.01.2008."
Earlier, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.6723 (S/S) of 2012 which was disposed of in terms of the judgments passed in Writ Petition No.46061 of 1993 decided on 26.09.1997 ; Writ Petition No.1075 (S/S) of 2007 decided on 14.02.2007 and the Court passed the order that the case of the petitioner was also at par with the aforesaid case, therefore, removal order of the Petitioner was quashed vide order dated 27.11.2012.
In pursuance of the aforesaid judgment dated 27.11.2012, the order dated 06.06.2013 was passed, which is challenged in the present petition. The Petitioners were reinstated in service in pursuance of the aforesaid orders. However, the back wages from 08.09.1973 to 31.01.2008 was not given. However, the other pensionary benefits was released in favour of the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has filed the present petition praying that the respondents has committed gross error by not providing the salary for the period 1973 to 2008. He has relied upon various judgments passed in Writ Petition No.42049 of 2006 dated 30.08.2013 ; Writ Petition No.1227 (S/S) of 2009 dated 24.02.2009 and judgment passed in Special Appeal (Defective) No.528 of 2009 in which identical issues have been decided and the Court has held that the Petitioner was entitled for the entire salary.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that it is also a case of revolt of PAC and the similarly situate persons were granted the said benefit by the aforesaid judgments which have been upheld by the Division Bench in Special Appeal (D) No.528 of 2009. He has further invited attention of this Court towards Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.15220 of 2012 preferred by the State and the same was dismissed by the Apex Court on 28.10.2013 and review petition filed was also dismissed on 09.10.2014.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has submitted that since the Petitioner had not worked, he is not entitled for the salary. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.2816 of 2007 dated 17.12.2009 which is evident that the back wages awarded to the petitioners was not paid because there was no direction to pay back wages and the respondents had also conceded before the Court for not claiming back wages.
In the present case, the latest judgment has been produced by the Petitioners passed in Writ Petition No.42049 of 2006 dated 30.08.2013; Writ Petition No.1227 (S/S) of 2009 dated 24.02.2009 and judgment passed in Special Appeal (Defective) No.528 of 2009 thereafter SLP (Civil ) No.15220 of 2012 preferred by State was also dismissed on 09.10.2014. The case of Petitioners are at par as the Special leave petition was dismissed and review petition was also dismissed therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for benefits as provided by the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court. In my opinion, the matter requires reconsideration.
Accordingly, the order dated 06.06.2013 passed by respondent no. 3 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The respondent no.3 is directed to take fresh decision by granting the benefit of judgment of Writ Petition No.42049 (S/S) 2006.
Order Date :- 12.5.2023
Arti/-
[Vivek Chaudhary,J.]
