Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12330 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15854 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondents. 2. Present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:- "A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents no. 2 & 3 to release the arrear of the salary of the petitioner for the period remained under suspension i.e. 26.11.2013 to 03.10.2014." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a false FIR being case crime no. 208A of 2013, under Sections 323, 325, 504 I.P.C. has been lodged against the petitioner, in which he was in jail since 26.11.2013 to 03.10.2014 and because of detention in jail, he was placed under suspension by the Disciplinary Authority. After being released from jail, he was reinstated in service and his suspension was also revoked by the authority concerned vide order dated 30.12.2014. During incarceration in jail, no disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner pursuant to suspension order. In criminal case, charge sheet has also been served to the petitioner. He next submitted that in S.T. No. 82 of 2014, trial was concluded and vide judgment and order dated 07.07.2023, petitioner has been acquitted from all charges by the trial Court. He next submitted that after acquittal, petitioner is not being paid salary of suspension period. He next submitted that in light of judgment of this Court in the matter of Anil Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others (Writ A No. 11555 of 2021) dated 13.3.2024, in case, no departmental proceeding is initiated against the petitioner, salary of suspension period may not be detained only on the ground of detention in jail. 4. Learned standing counsel though opposed and submitted that as per settled principle of law "no work, no pay", petitioner is not entitled for any salary for the period of suspension, but could not dispute the fact that this Court in the matter of Anil Kumar Singh (supra) has adjudicated the same dispute and decided the case in favour of petitioner with direction to respondent authorities to pay the salary for the period of suspension. 5. I have considered the rival submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Facts of the case are undisputed that salary of petitioner has been detained due to detention in jail during suspension period. It is also undisputed that in S.T. No. 82 of 2014, petitioner has been acquitted from all charges by the trial Court, therefore, present controversy is squarely covered with the judgement of this Court in the matter of Anil Kumar Singh (supra). Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of aforesaid judgment are quoted below; "15. I find petitioner's case to be on a much better footing as he was only suspended for detention in jail without there being any inquiry in contemplation and his suspension was revoked immediately upon his acquittal in the criminal case and no appeal was preferred against the judgment of acquittal. 16. In view of the above, therefore, the Court is of the considered view that respondents are not justified in denying salary to the petitioner applying the principle of 'no work no pay'. 17. Accordingly, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Joint Director of Education, Prayagraj Region, Prayagraj dated 1st May, 2018 and also the order passed by the Additional Director of Education (Basic) dated 28th January, 2020 are hereby quashed." 7. Under such facts of the case, writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to pay salary of petitioner for the period of suspension, maximum within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Sartaj Digitally signed by :- SARTAJ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad