Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9849 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5469 of 2023 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Secretariat, Administration, Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Alok Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working as Class-IV employee in Secretariat Administration. It has been further stated that in the year 2007 he was suffering from Jaundice and Typhoid and at the same time his son suffered from Pneumonia and succumbed to the said disease. It is for the aforesaid cumulative reason that the petitioner was absent from 01.01.2007 to 30.11.2007. The petitioner joined services on 30.11.2007 and he was permitted to continue to work till his superannuation on 30.06.2014. It is only after superannuation of the petitioner that only provisional pension was paid to him. Subsequently, the petitioner made representation in this regard. It has been submitted that on his superannuation the petitioner was paid provisional pension till September, 2019 he was served an order dated 24.03.2019 stating that the period 01.01.2007 to 30.11.2007 the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from duty and which is being treated as break in service and therefore, even the provisional pension is sought to be stopped with immediate effect and the respondents sought to recover the said amount. The petitioner in the present has challenged the order dated 24.09.2019 as well as 13.04.2021 and 03.09.2021, whereby recovery has been made from the pension of the petitioner. 3. After arguing the matter at length, the counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that he does not have any record pertaining to the regularization of leave for the period from 01.01.2007 to 30.11.2007. He also not aware of the fact that whether he gave an application for grant of leave or not. 4. On the other hand, it seems that the respondents have also not granted leave for the aforesaid period inasmuch as no application in this regard was given by the petitioner. Accordingly, from the undisputed facts, it seems that neither the petitioner made any effort for regularization of his absence from 01.01.2007 to 30.11.2007 and on the other hand, the State also did not take any steps for the same. Again, it is undisputed that in case the petitioner had moved any application, the same would have been considered in accordance with law and the respondents would have either unconditionally granted leave to the petitioner for the aforesaid period or would have imposed certain conditions at the time grant of the said leave but in any view of the matter, the petitioner has right to move an application for regularization of the leave while on the other hand, the respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate orders in case, such an application is moved. The question of granting pension would arise only when the aspect of grant of leave to the petitioner from 01.01.2007 to 30.11.2007 is finalized and whether the said period is regularized would amount to continuing in service otherwise it may be considered as break in service. Accordingly, without adjudicating about the validity of the orders dated 24.09.2019, 13.04.2021 and 03.09.2021. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to move an appropriate application to the opposite party no.2 for grant of leave / regularization of his absence from 01.01.2007 to 30.11.2007. In case, such an application is made, opposite party no.2 shall proceed to pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of submission of the said application. While deciding the application of the petitioner, opposite party no.2 shall not be influence by the order dated 24.09.2019, 13.04.2021 and 03.09.2021. and the same shall be decided in accordance with law. In case the respondents grant leave either unconditionally or which certain condition they shall also proceed to consider the question of grant of full pension to the petitioner along with all the other service /post retiral dues which are admissible to a government servant. In the contingency of the respondent not acceding to the prayer made by the petitioner, he shall be at liberty to assail the rejection order along with the order which has been impugned in the present writ petition. 5. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. [Alok Mathur,J.] Order Date :- 14.2.2025 KR Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench