Anil Kumar Motla vs State Of U P And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 10414 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Anil Kumar Motla vs State Of U P And Another on 11 September, 2025

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:161280
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
WRIT - A No. - 19668 of 2019   
 
   Anil Kumar Motla    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U P And Another    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Abhitab Kumar Tiwari, Sanjeet Kumar Mishra   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C., Rahul Agarwal   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 5
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.      

1.Heard Sri Abhitab Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Paritosh Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver in UPSRTC, Meerut Depot, Meerut in the year 2005. He suffered a serious injury in his leg and was operated also and when it was found difficult to drive the bus, he opted for an alternative duty.

3. In the year 2014, he has undergone a medical examination and was found permanently unfit for driving.

4. In similar circumstances, many drivers opted for alternative duty and a dispute arose that whether they will be granted alternative job or they will be ousted from service, therefore, number of writ petitions were filed before this Court challenging the order of medical treatment and subsequently joined duty of Driver.

5. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by a judgment dated 17.9.2015 decided a bunch of writ petitions including a writ petition filed by present petitioner leading being Writ Petition No.38185 of 2015, Ravi Shankar Dubey Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & 5 Ors, wherein the impugned orders were set-aside and the writ petitions was disposed of with a direction that the respondents shall refer the matter of each petitioners to the newly constituted State Medical Board, which shall examine the case of each petitioners in the light of direction given in the said judgment.

6. In view of the above, petitioner was paid salary for the period when he remained outside the job. However, again on the basis of fresh medical report dated 26.7.2016, respondents communicated the petitioner vide a letter dated 27.7.2016 that since his disease was curable, therefore, he was asked to join duty of Driver after becoming fit. Said order was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing a Writ Petition No.40948 of 2016, which was allowed vide order dated 21.11.2017. Said order is reproduced hereinafter:

"The petitioners have filed the above noted writ petition praying for quashing of the letter dated 27.7.2016, whereby they were directed to submit the fitness certificate after medical treatment upon their own expenses.

Challenging the same order, the writ petition No. 49670 of 2016 (Bhopal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) was filed by another aggrieved petitioner, Bhopal Singh, which has been allowed vide order dated 27.10.2017, remitting the matter to the Medical Board with the stipulation that, if upon a preliminary medical examination, a conclusive finding cannot be recorded as to medical fitness or otherwise of the petitioner, the Medical Board will submit its report to the corporation only after completion of all the investigations/medical examinations of the petitioners, in clear and unambiguous terms within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with the same observations and the order dated 27.07.2016 passed by the respondent No.5 is quashed."

7. Subsequently, petitioner joined alternative duty, but was not paid salary for the period between 28.7.2016 to 12.12.2017. In this regard, petitioner thereafter sent a representation to the concerned respondent and when no action was taken and being aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No.12073 of 2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 4.12.2018 to consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary between 28.7.2016 to 12.12.2017. Said order is reproduced hereinafter:

"1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a Mandamus to be issued to the respondent No. 3 to release the salary of petitioner for the period starting w.e.f. 28.07.2016 to 12.12.2017 with annual increments and other benefits as are admissible to him.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as a permanent driver in the Corporation in year 2005 and he suffered an injury in 2009 which resulted into his right knee being affected. In pursuance of the Circular issued by the Corporation he was allowed the light work. However, the respondent No. 3 directed the petitioner for a re-medical examination and again, the petitioner was found unfit for driving the Corporation bus by the Medical Board. The petitioner was assigned alternative duty at Meerut Depot on the Inquiry Counter.

4. After sometime, the respondent No. 3 passed an order directing the petitioner to do his duty according to the post for which he was appointed without considering the medical condition. The order dated 27.07.2016 was challenged by the petitioner in Writ- A No.40948 of 2016: Anil Kumar Motla and another Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others.

5. The writ petition was allowed by this Court by its order dated 21.11.2017. The matter was remitted to the respondents to refer to the Medical Board which would submit its report after completing all investigation/medical examination of petitioner and in clear and unambiguous terms.

6. In pursuance of the orders passed by this Court an order dated 4th December, 2017 was issued by the Regional Manager to the Assistant Regional Manager to take alternative duties from the petitioner. The petitioner was allowed to join his duty. But he has not been paid salary for which he has made a representation to the respondent No. 3 which remains pending till date.

7. This writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the respondent No.3 to consider the representation of petitioner dated 16.02.2018 in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the authority concerned. "

8. In the above background, a representation filed by the petitioner was considered, however, it was rejected by the impugned order dated 8.5.2019 that petitioner remained absent from duty from 28.7.2016 to 12.12.2017 and neither he has filed any medical certificate nor any application for leave for aforesaid period was allowed, therefore, on the principles of 'No work no pay' no salary could be granted to him for said period.

9. Order dated 8.5.2019 is impugned in the present writ petition.

10. During the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that petitioner remained absent from duty from 28.7.2016 to 12.12.2017 and has not worked. However, he further submitted that it was not his entire fault, rather it was the act of the respondents that they have failed to provide an alternative job to him and since the petitioner was suffering with a leg injury, therefore, he was not able to drive the bus and has approached this Court thrice before this writ petition was filed.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed the fact that petitioner has earlier approached this Court on three occasions and this Court vide orders dated 17.9.2015, 21.11.2017 and 4.12.2018 has directed the petitioner to undergo medical examination and if he is found unfit to drive, he may be given alternative job and since admittedly the petitioner remained absent from his duty therefore, on the principles of 'no work no pay' no salary can be granted to the petitioner.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

13. On the basis of above referred facts, it is clear that petitioner was before this Court agitating his right which was ultimately found to be genuine and the petitioner was granted alternative job, therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that it was entire fault of the petitioner that he did not join the job between the above referred period would not be a correct submission.

14. It may be a case that petitioner has also never tried to remain at least present at the office of the respondents to mark his presence, still considering that in the given set of circumstances, principles of 'No work no pay 'is not strictly applicable.

15. It is a case that both the parties were at default, therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court finds that this writ petition can be disposed of with following directions:

a) It has been told that petitioner's salary for the aforesaid period would be around Rs.24,000/- per month, as such arrears of salary would be around 4 lakhs and since admittedly the petitioner has not worked during the aforesaid period, therefore, in the interest of justice 1/3rd amount shall be paid to the petitioner which would be approximately Rs.1.33 lakhs, therefore, respondents are directed that they will pay Rs.1.33 lakhs to the petitioner within a period of 8 weeks from today towards arrears of salary for aforesaid period i.e. 28.7.2016 to 12.12.2017.

16. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)

September 11, 2025

SB