HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 5432 of 2024 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. Heard. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged an order dated 25.04.2025 by which his claim petition challenging the order dated 02.05.2018 denying him the salary for the period he was out of service after his dismissal till his reinstatement has been dismissed. 3. We have perused the order dated 02.05.2018. The basis of the said order is a recital that in para no.1 to 10 of the response of the petitioner- claimant to the show cause notice dated 24.01.2018, it has nowhere been mentioned as to whether he was employed or was unemployed during the aforesaid period. We have perused the response of the petitioner to the aforesaid show cause notice and we find para 8 of the said response as under:- "8. यह िक प्राथीर् सेवा के वखार्स्तगी से पुनः सेवा में बहाली के मध्य के समय में अनेकों आिथक परेशािनयों का सामना करते हुए खेती आिद का कायर् करके बड़ी किठनाई से अपना तथा अपने पिरवार का भरण पोषण िकया है।" 4. Of course, the response is not happily worded in the sense that a categorical averment that he was not in any other employment has not been made but from a reading of para no.8 it comes out that he has stated that during the period he was out of service, he was earning his livelihood through farming and was in great financial difficulty, therefore, implicitly, he had stated that he was not employed elsewhere . In any case, the order Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajeet Kumar Singh, Pradeep Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Manish Mishra Const. 872413306 Ram Chandra .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) which was impugned before the tribunal nowhere mentions that there is any proof that he was employed during the period he was out of service. The tribunal surprisingly enough has dismissed the claim petition on the finding that no explanation whatsoever was offered as to how the petitioner had been earning his livelihood whereas in fact in his response he has categorically mentioned that he was earning his livelihood from farming. Therefore, the judgment of the tribunal appears to have been rendered without going through the response of the petitioner to the show cause notice. 5. At this stage, it is informed that there were certain other service benefits which were required to be given to the petitioner in compliance of the judgment dated 30.11.2012 passed in Claim Petition No.1379 of 1997 which were not given such as continuity in service, benefit of selection grade promotional pay scale, full salary etc and to this extent, there was a relief claimed in this regard in Claim Petition No.1401/2018 which has been allowed, meaning thereby, the claim petition has been partly allowed so far these benefits consequential to earlier judgment dated 30.11.2012 is concerned but so far as challenge to order dated 02.05.2018 is concerned, the same has been declined. 6. For all these reasons and to this extent i.e. challenge to the order dated 02.05.2018, we set aside the impugned judgment and the order dated 02.05.2018. To facilitate fresh decision in the matter in terms of relevant provisions of fundamental rules as referred in the show cause notice, we permit the petitioner to submit a fresh response within ten days of receipt of certified copy of this order before the Commissioner of Police, Kanpur who shall reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made hereinabove and take a fresh decision as to the entitlement of the petitioner to salary etc for the period after his dismissal till his reinstatement. This decision shall be taken within six weeks from receipt of certified copy of this order along with a fresh representation. 7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. September 16, 2025/ Shanu/- WRIA No. 5432 of 2024 2 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench