Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 787 (ALL)

Ratan Srivastava v. State of U. P.

2023-03-23

VIVEK CHAUDHARY

body2023
JUDGMENT : VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 23.01.2015 and Government Order dated 08.07.1987. 3. After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is confining his prayer only to the extent of interpretation of order dated 23.01.2015. 4. The facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Tehvildar (Collection Amin) in the year 1988 in the treasury department of district Varanasi. In the year 1991, district Chandauli was carved out of the district Varanasi and petitioner was placed in the new district Chandauli. Thereafter, seniority of the petitioner was not fixed and ultimately in the year 1999 he was sent from treasury department to revenue department. Petitioner was shown as absent from 01.07.2008 to 15.08.2012. He challenged the same before the Court and a direction was issued to decide the representation of the petitioner. Now, by the impugned order, his representation is decided. The impugned order states that petitioner was absent from 01.07.2008 to 15.08.2012 and on the basis of principle of “no work, no pay” petitioner was not given salary for the said period. Ultimately, petitioner continued to work with the department and retired on 31.01.2022. Petitioner, now confines his prayer and submits that even as per the impugned order at best petitioner can be treated to be absent without sanctioned leave and the period be counted as “leave without pay” i.e. on the basis of which order of no work no pay was passed. 5. There is no order of any authority whatsoever by which any break in service can be presumed. In the said circumstances, petitioner's service from the year 1988 till 31.01.2022 is required to be taken as continuous service without any break for calculation of post retiral dues and the period from 01.07.2008 to 15.08.2012 is to be treated as leave without pay and principle of no work and no pay would be applicable. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing his prayer with regard to salary for the period of 01.07.2008 to 15.08.2012 and confining his prayer only with regard to counting of his entire service period without any break and calculation of his post retiral benefit on the basis of the same. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing his prayer with regard to salary for the period of 01.07.2008 to 15.08.2012 and confining his prayer only with regard to counting of his entire service period without any break and calculation of his post retiral benefit on the basis of the same. 7. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute from the record that there is no order by which any break in service of the petitioner can be read. 8. In view thereof, the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner is accepted. 9. Respondents are directed to calculate the retiral benefits of the petitioner without considering any break in service of the petitioner. 10. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 11. Respondent no. 4 District Magistrate, Chandauli is directed to calculate and pay the retiral benefits to petitioner within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him.