Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39282 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3349 of 2025 Petitioner :- Gajraj Singh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ratnesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sujeet Kumar Rai Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Ratnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Sujeet Kumar Rai, learned counsel for Respondents-2 and 3. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court at a very belated stage with a relief to release his salary from 10.06.2011 and 25.05.2015. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was facing trial under Prevention of Corruption Act on basis of a First Information Report dated 10.06.2011. However, by a judgment dated 07.08.2018 he was acquitted since prosecution was failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner refers certain representations annexed alongwith this writ petition, however, it appears to be of the years 2023, 2024 and recently on 13.02.2025. Petitioner is now aged about 64 years. Learned counsel also submits that petitioner’s remaining amount of contributory provident fund has also not been paid and for that he has approached the concerned authority. 5. Learned counsel appearing for Respondents-2 and 3 submits that admittedly petitioner has not worked between the aforesaid period, i.e., 10.06.2011 to 25.05.2015, therefore, on the principle of “no work no pay” his salary has not been paid. He further submits that since for aforesaid period petitioner’s salary was not paid and no contributory fund was deducted, therefore, there is no question of payment of contributory provident fund for aforesaid period. 6. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the record. 7. Above referred facts are not in dispute that petitioner has faced a criminal trial from 2011 to 2016 and finally he was acquitted though it was not honourable acquittal and for that this Court takes note of the judgments passed by Supreme Court in Deputy Inspector General of Police and another Vs. S.Samuthiram, 2013 (1) SCC 598; State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Love Kush Meena, 2021 SCC Online SC 252; and, Union of India and others vs. Methu Meda, (2022) 1 SCC 1. 8. Petitioner remained lethargic towards his relief and has approached this Court only in the year 2025, i.e., after about more than 10 years and even after 7 years of order of acquittal. It is well settled that repeated representations do not perpetuate life to any claim. Admittedly petitioner has not worked for aforesaid period, therefore, on the principle of “no work no pay” he is not entitled for salary. 9. Further, I find merit in the argument of learned counsel for respondents that since petitioner has not worked for aforesaid period and no salary was paid, therefore, no deduction was made towards contributory provident fund, as such relief sought for payment of contributory provident fund is also not granted. 10. In aforesaid circumstances, the relief sought in writ petition cannot be granted. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 AK Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad