HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 39893 of 2009 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Anand Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for respondents. 2. The petitioner was appointed on post of conductor in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. Petitioner has suffered with an order of dismissal in disciplinary proceedings, a challenge to it was allowed in part and order on termination as well as appellate order was set aside, however, it was subject to the certain directions and for reference, the part of order dated 20.09.2006 passed by this Court in earlier round of litigation in Writ Petition No.22514 of 1997 is reproduced hereinafter :- "Further, the order of dismissal dose not indicate that the disciplinary authority had found that the charges against the petitioner stood proved. Consequently, in the absence of any findings that the charges stood proved against the petitioner, the Court is of the opinion that the order of dismissal against the sole charge that was found proved by the enquiry officer, by itself, could not be a ground fro the dismissal of the petitioner. For the reasons stated aforesaid, the order of termination as well as the appellate order cannot be sustained and are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner within one month from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned. Since, no relief for back wages has been claimed, this Court is therefore not inclined to grant any relief of back wages. Even otherwise, in the opinion of the Court, since the petitioner had not worked during the interim period, no wages can be granted on the basis of the principle of No Work no Pay". Since, only one charge leveled against the petitioner had been proved, consequently, the petitioner would not be entitled to receive the balance pay during the suspension Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anand Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., S K Mishra, Samir Sharma, V.B. Mishra Lokman Singh .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Others .....Respondent(s) period other than the subsistence allowance. The period of suspension from the date of the dismissal till the date of reinstatement would however be counted towards his length of service. In the circumstances of the case, parties will bear their own cost." 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that on one hand, petitioner was not allowed to join soon after aforesaid order was passed and in the garb of fact that special appeal was pending, he was allowed to join after about two years i.e. in the year 2008 as well as his salary was fixed on basic pay scale. No monetary benefit was granted for the period when he was not allowed to join. A contempt proceeding initiated was disposed of without any specific order and thereafter special appeal was also dismissed. 4. I have considered the above submissions and perused the record. The order dated 20.09.2006 is final and since it has not been challenged at the behest of petitioner, so far as other relief is concerned, therefore, the Court cannot go beyond the direction passed in the said order. It was specifically directed that period of suspension from the date of dismissal to till the date of reinstatement be count towards the length of service as well as no relief for back wages was claimed, therefore, the Court has not directed that petitioner will get any peculiar benefit from the date of dismissal to till the date of reinstatement. The petitioner has given continuity of service, however, in view of above order he was sightly not given any financial benefit for said period. 5. So far as question whether the respondents have not allowed to petitioner to rejoin is not effectively challenged in present case. Reliance placed by learned counsel for petitioner in judgment passed Mahabir Prasad Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2014 LawSuit(Del) 2614 will not be helpful since in the said judgment, the Court was considering a challenge to order passed by respondent whereas in present case, petitioner has not challenged any other order, therefore, relief sought cannot be granted. 6. Writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. September 8, 2025 P. Pandey WRIA No. 39893 of 2009 2 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad