HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 63125 of 2017 Court No. - 34 Sl. No. 85 HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Shri Rajesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vijay Prakash Mishra, learned standing counsel for the State respondents. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner herein seeking quashing of the order dated 25.09.2017 and the amended/modified order dated 25.11.2017 whereby the petitioner has been granted the promotional pay scale treating his service with effect from 30.05.1991, when he was reinstated in service. He further claims that he should be granted notional grade pay treating his initial appointment from 01.02.1982. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was initially appointed as constable in UP police department on 01.02.1982. During the period of probation, some complaints were received with regard to registration of criminal case against the petitioner and his services were terminated vide order dated 26.06.1982. Later on, on representations submitted by the petitioner vide government order dated 23.03.1991, the directions were issued to reinstate the petitioner as constable in UP police department after taking an undertaking from him that he will not claim any financial benefit from the period of his termination till his reinstatement and the period from the date of termination till his reinstatement shall be treated as extraordinary leave granted to the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Atmaram Nadiwal, Dinesh Kumar Yadav, Harish Chandra Mishra, Narendra Mohan, Om Prakash Singh, Rajesh Singh, Rajiv Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Amar Singh Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) petitioner. However, he will not claim any salary etc. for the said period. Pursuant to the said government order, the petitioner was reinstated on 4.5.1991 and has submitted the undertaking on 04.05.1991 and he was reinstated accordingly as constable. He was not paid salary for the period between the order of termination till his reinstatement. However, continuity in service in terms of the order dated 23.03.1991 was granted to the petitioner and in the seniority list also he was treated from his initial appointment on 01.02.1982. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the ACPs etc. has been granted by the respondent and the subsequent grade pay has also been granted by the respondents while counting his service only from 30.05.1991, the date of reinstatement in service. Whereas as per the order dated 23.03.1991, since extraordinary leave was granted to the petitioner for the period from the date of termination till his reinstatement, for all practical purpose except the payment of salary for the said period, he was entitled for all consequential benefits which have been denied by the impugned orders by treating his continuity in service only from 30.05.1991. In such view of the matter, since the reinstatement order passed by the government on 23.03.1991 itself provides that the petitioner shall be granted extraordinary leave for the period i.e. from the date of termination till his reinstatement without any financial benefit thus for all practical purposes except the financial benefit of salary etc. for the said period, the petitioner is entitled for continuity in service from his initial appointment on 01.02.1982, which is also reflected from the seniority list prepared on 07.06.2016 by the respondent in which the seniority of the petitioner has been counted from 01.02.1982. Consequently, the petitioner ought to have been granted the benefits of promotion etc. by counting his service from 01.02.1982 and not from 30.05.1991 as has been done by the impugned orders. Thus learned counsel for the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order. 5. This court has carefully gone through the record of the case and from perusal of the records it is apparent that the petitioner was initially appointed on 01.02.1982. Although his services were terminated on 26.06.1982 but he was subsequently reinstated pursuant to the Government Order dated 23.03.1991. the reinstatement order specifically WRIA No. 63125 of 2017 2 directed that the period between termination and reinstatement be treated as extraordinary leave, thereby ensuring continuity of service for all practical purposes, notwithstanding the petitioner’s undertaking not to claim back wages or financial benefits for that specific period. This continuity is further corroborated by the seniority list dated 07.06.2016, wherein the petitioner’s seniority is calculated from his original appointment date i.e. 01.02.1982. Thus in the considered opinion of this Court the impugned orders dated 25.09.2017 and 25.11.2017, which restricted the petitioner’s promotional pay scale and ACP benefits by counting service only from the date of reinstatement 30.05.1991 are legally unsustainable. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 25.09.2017 and the amended/modified order dated 25.11.2017 are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondents to calculate all the financial benefits treating the continuity of service of the petitioner from 01.02.1982 and grant him all consequential benefits except the payment of salary for the period from the date of his termination till his reinstatement. This exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid directions, the instant petition stands disposed of. May 7, 2026 o.k. WRIA No. 63125 of 2017 3 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- OM KRISHNA CHOUDHARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad