HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 21878 of 2018 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.4.2018, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, by which Shri Baleshwar, father of the petitioner has not been found entitled for being paid salary for the period of unauthorised absence from 1.7.2007 till the date of dismissal 20.3.2010. 3. Admittedly, on account of unauthorised absence of father of the petitioner from 1.7.2007 he had been dismissed from service vide order dated 20.3.2010, a copy of which is annexure 5 to the writ petition. Upon the petitioner’s father submitting a representation the respondents acting sympathetically modified the order of dismissal to one of compulsory retirement with effect from 20.3.2010 vide order dated 29.10.2016, a copy of which is annexure 10 to the writ petition. Thereafter the father of the petitioner staked his claim for being given salary for the period of his unauthorized absence i.e. from 1.7.2007 till the date of dismissal from service 20.3.2010. 4. The respondents vide order impugned have rejected the said claim by contending that as Shri Baleshwar, father of the petitioner did not work from 1.7.2007 till dismissal dated 20.3.2010 consequently on the principle of no work no pay he would not be entitled for salary. Raising challenge to the said order Shri Baleshwar had filed the instant writ petition but Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nand Kishore Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ajay Kumar, Ravi Prakash Yadav Baleshwar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. And Ors. .....Respondent(s) during the pendency of the writ petition on account of his death his legal heir has been substituted. 5. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the petitioner’s father Shri Baleshwar was suffering from paralysis consequently he was unable to work and accordingly the principle of no work no pay would not be applicable. 6. The further argument is that this Court while passing the judgement and order dated 26.3.2012 in Writ Petition No. 1466 (SS) of 2012, a copy of which is annexure 7 to the writ petition, have specifically indicated that Shri Baleshwar is suffering from serious ailment and is confined to bed due to paralysis since October 2006 and thus a finding had been recorded by the writ court which the respondents have patently erred in not considering. 7. The aforesaid argument as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is found to be patently fallacious. 8. Apart from the fact that the writ court in the judgement and order dated 26.3.2012 has nowhere recorded that the petitioner’s father was suffering from a serious ailment on account of paralysis rather it is the contention of the petitioner that was recorded by the Court while disposing of the writ petition, the other aspect of the matter is even while filing the instant writ petition the petitioner has failed to bring on record any medical records to indicate that Shri Baleshwar had been suffering from paralysis for the aforesaid period for which he has been denied salary on the principles of no work no pay. 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. September 8, 2025 J. K. Dinkar WRIA No. 21878 of 2018 2 (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench