HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1122 of 2005 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Heard. 2. By means of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 19.09.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.4205 (S/S) of 2000. 3. The relevant facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the respondent- petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 15.03.1999 and the same being challenged in appeal which was rejected. Thereafter he preferred a revision. In the revision, the order of removal was modified to one of compulsory retirement. The order of compulsory retirement dated 08.09.1999 was challenged by the respondent-petitioner by means of Writ Petition No.4205 (S/S) of 2000. The order of compulsory retirement dated 08.09.1999, which in fact was a revisional order, was quashed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that it was a non-speaking order. 4. While entertaining this appeal, partial stay was granted to the extent of payment of backwages, consequently the appellants complied the order of the writ court by reinstating the respondent-petitioner. However, as Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Dipak Srivastava, Deepak Srivastava, Raj Kumar Singh, Ram Veer Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Pt.Surya Kumar Awasthi, Ganga Prasad Mishra Union Of India Through Secretary Interna Security 4205ss2000 .....Appellant(s) Ram Vir Singh .....Respondent(s) informed by Shri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, the respondent-petitioner again committed misconduct, consequently he was dismissed from service on 12.06.2007. This order was challenged by the respondent-petitioner by means of Writ Petition No.3480 of 2009, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 26.09.2022 and it remains dismissed. The respondent-petitioner is no longer in service since 12.06.2007. 5. The question now is only of backwages for the period 15.03.1999 to 22.05.2006. In fact, backwages would be restricted from 15.03.1999 to 08.09.1999, i.e. the date of his compulsory retirement which is about a little more than six months. 6. Looking into the fact that the respondent-petitioner did not work from 15.03.1999 till 08.09.1999 and taking into consideration the entire factual scenario before us, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Single Judge to the extent that it allows backwages is liable to be quashed. 7. We, accordingly, quashed the said judgment only to the aforesaid extent with a further clarification that the respondent-petitioner would not be entitled to such benefits, leaving rest of the judgment as it is. 8. The appeal is allowed in part. December 16, 2025 Anand/- SPLA No. 1122 of 2005 2 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench