Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47214 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9071 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Ji Lal Kushawaha Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Om Gupta,Sachin Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to authority concerned to consider petitioner's case and provide full pension to petitioner by adding suspension service period in his continuity of service from date of suspension i.e. 11.12.1985 till 30.04.1998 as has been provided in order dated 30.04.1998 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned. 3. It has been submitted that earlier petitioner while working on post of Lekhpal, was removed from service vide order dated 02.12.1987 against which he filed Claim Petition before the State Public Services Tribunal. The same was partly allowed by means of judgment and order dated 16.03.1990 granting liberty to appointing authority to reconsider the matter for passing appropriate order of punishment. It is submitted that in purported compliance thereof, petitioner was issued a fresh order dated 07.06.1990 of reappointment which was thereafter challenged before the Tribunal in Claim Petition No.333/I/1990 and was also partly allowed by means of judgment and order dated 16.12.1997. It is submitted that in pursuance thereof, after Contempt Petition having been filed, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned has passed order dated 30.04.1998 issuing directions for continuity of service to be provided to petitioner. He has also adverted to order dated 22.04.1999 passed in Contempt Petition before the Tribunal to submit that it has been clearly recorded that since opposite parties have already cancelled order of re-appointment and and granted continuity of service to petitioner, for all practical purposes, the Contempt Petition was disposed of. It is therefore submitted that petitioner is entitled for continuity of service. 4. Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, learned State Counsel has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that neither in the earlier judgment and order dated 16.03.1990 nor in the subsequent judgment and order dated 16.12.1997 has the Tribunal permitted any continuity of service with regard to period of suspension. It is submitted that on the contrary, petitioner's relief for consequential service benefits had been specifically rejected as has also been noticed in order passed in Contempt jurisdiction and merely because of order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, petitioner would not have any claim for continuity of service. 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, the facts as indicated herein above are admitted by learned counsel for the parties and as is evident from material on record. It is also noticeable that in judgment and order dated 16.03.1990, the Tribunal had partly allowed Claim Petition of petitioner granting liberty to appointing authority to reconsider the dispute for passing appropriate order of punishment. Purportedly, in exercise of such liberty, opposite parties instead of passing a fresh order of punishment, issued order dated 07.06.1990 granting fresh appointment to petitioner. The same was challenged in Claim Petition which was thereafter partly allowed by means of judgment and order dated 16.12.1997. A perusal of the said judgment indicates that petitioner's relief for consequential service benefits have been specifically disallowed and the petition was dismissed to that extent. The said aspect has thereafter been dealt with in order dated 22.04.1999 in Contempt jurisdiction whereby it has been recorded that 'The Tribunal has not given any directions to opposite parties to pay the salary either for the period of suspension or for the period from the date of dismissal till date of reinstatement'. 6. From aforesaid aspects, it is evident that petitioner's claim for consequential service benefits and including the period of suspension towards continuity of service has been specifically rejected by the Tribunal. It is also admitted by learned counsel for petitioner that aforesaid judgments were never challenged and therefore attained finality. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, once such a prayer of petitioner has been specifically disallowed and rejected by Tribunal, the mere indication of continuity of service in the order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, being contrary to judgment, would not come to his aid. It is also relevant that admittedly, petitioner superannuated from service in year 2012 and therefore also this writ petition is belated by almost 13 years without any cogent reasons being indicated for that. 8. In view of discussion made herein above, this Court does not find any occasion to grant indulgence. 9. The petition therefore fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. The parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench