Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:9345 Court No. - 68 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 497 of 2024 Applicant :- Jai Narayan Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bal Ram Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 2 of 2024: This is an application to condone the delay in filing the review application. The reasons for delay in filing the review application has been sufficiently explained in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application. There is no opposition to the application. The delay in filing the review application is hereby condoned. The delay condonation application is allowed. Order on Review Application: Heard Shri Balram Gupta, learned counsel for the review applicant and perused the record. The instant review application has been filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 30.9.2022 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 18469 of 2021 (Jai Narayan versus State of U.P. and others). By the order dated 30.9.2022, the writ petition of the review applicant was allowed and a writ of mandamus was issued commanding the respondent to fix the salary of the applicant accordingly by including the period 1.4.1999 to 31.7.2012 as service rendered. The pensionary benefits were directed to be revised accordingly. The entire exercise was directed to be completed by the respondents within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court and payments i.e. revised pension, arrears etc., were directed to be made thereafter within a fortnight. Learned counsel for the review applicant has argued that this Court while allowing the writ petition and issuing the direction aforesaid opined that the applicant may not be entitled to payment of salary for the period 15.6.1999 to 31.7.2012 on the principal of "No Work No Pay", but the said period could not be excluded for the purposes of grant of pensionary benefits. It is contended that the Committee of Management of the Institution concerned i.e. the respondent No. 4 proceeded to terminate the services of the applicant vide resolution dated 13.9.2007. The said resolution was, however, not approved by the District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur. The challenge to the disapproval order also failed with the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 30088 of 2008 moved at the instance of the Committee of Management by order dated 31.7.2019. Admittedly, the applicant superannuated on 31.7.2012, as a consequence of the order dated 31.7.2019, the applicant would be presumed to be in continuous service till the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.7.2012. It is contended that in such view of the matter, the applicant was entitled for the salary for the period 15.6.1999 to 31.7.2012, particularly, in view of the order dated 30.4.2008 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur disapproving the resolution for terminating the services of the applicant and directing for continuation of service and payment of regular salary. I have heard learned counsel for the review applicant and perused the record. Admittedly, no material has been placed by learned counsel for the review applicant to establish the fact that applicant had worked for the period 15.6.1999 up to 31.7.2012 i.e. the date of his superannuation. On the contrary, there is a report dated 20.8.2022 of the Manager of the Institution for treating the period 15.6.1999 to 31.7.2012 as "No Work No Pay". The applicant having not worked for the said period may not be entitled for the salary.There is no error on the fact of the record warranting interference in review jurisdiction. In such view of the matter, the Court finds no good ground to review its judgment and order dated 30.9.2022. The review application is accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Ravi Prakash (Ashutosh Srivastava, J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad