HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 8623 of 2022 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 the order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the U.P. Public Service Tribunal in Contempt Petition No.250 of 2009. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspte of the judgement and order dated 05.01.2009 passed in Claim Petition No.32 of 2003 by which the punishment order dated 04.02.2002 removing the petitioner from service was set-aside and a direction was issued inter-alia to reinstate him in service forthwith, the reinstatement took place only on 29.06.2012. The contempt petition has been disposed of with the observations that substantial compliance has been done. 4. It is submitted that not only the petitioner was not reinstated forthwith but was reinstated after three years. Nothing has been paid to him for these three years during which he was kept out of service contemptuously despite the judgement dated 05.01.2009. 5. On being confronted, learned Standing Counsel inspite of his best efforts could not satisfy us as to how it could be said that substantial compliance has been made when the facts are so apparent before us. In fact in view of the liberty granted by the judgement dated 05.01.2009 proceedings were held afresh and ultimately they were dropped because Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anesh Kumar Agarwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shikhar Anand, C.S.C. Dr. Anoop Agarwal .....Petitioner(s) U.P.Public Services Tribunal, Lko. Thru. Its Chairman And Others .....Respondent(s) nothing was found against the petitioner. 6. We have perused the order of reinstatement dated 29.06.2012 as also the earlier the orders passed in the contempt proceedings. Apparently, this was a fit case for proceeding and taking the contempt proceeding to its logical conclusion. Apparently, the order dated 12.09.2022 does not further the cause of substantial justice nor can it be sustained in view of the facts and reasons noticed heareinabove. Accordingly, we set it aside. Consequently, the Contempt Petition No.250 of 2009 shall stand restored before the Tribunal and shall now be proceeded with as per law keeping in mind the earlier orders passed therein as also this order. 7. At this stage we are informed that a decision was taken by the concerned opposite parties regarding the salary for the period the petitioner remained out of service consequent to the order of the removal and he has been denied salary on the ground of no work no pay. As far as this aspect is concerned, the petitioner will have to agitate it separately by filing a claim petition or a writ petition as the case may be, but so far as the belated reinstatement is concerned, certainly this was an aspect to be seen in the contempt proceedings because the order impugned does not mention about any apology having been tendered in this regard nor about it having been accepted and how far this could have been done is also an issue which should be seen by the Tribunal. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. September 16, 2025 S.P. WRIA No. 8623 of 2022 2 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench