Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144860 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37716 of 2017 Petitioner :- Virendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. Re: Civil Misc. Substitution Application No 6 of 2019 1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Application is allowed. 3. Let the name of sole petitioner-Virendra Singh be struck off from array of parties and in his place, name of his legal heir Mrs. Manju Chauhan be substituted, during course of the day. Re: Writ Petition 1. Present writ petition has been filed for following relief: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 25.1.2017 passed by D.I.O.S., Kasganj (Annexure-7 in this writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner between the month of August, 2012 and 15.9.2014 with interest at the rate to be specified by this Hon'ble Court. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to function up till the age of 62 years and retire him on 31.3.2019 and till then pay regularly monthly salary every month. (iv) Alternatively, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to sanction the pension and other post retiral benefits to the petitioner with interest within a time to be specified by this Hon'ble Court." 2. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1983 on ad hoc basis as Assistant Teacher. When the respondents chose to replace with another ad hoc teacher, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing Writ A No. 7696 of 1986 and based on interim orders granted in the said writ petition, the petitioner has continued as Assistant Teacher. Subsequently, the services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 4.6.2007 and the salary was also paid regularly. 3. While things stood thus, respondents have stopped salary to the petitioner from 23.6.2010 on the ground that the abovesaid writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has preferred Special Appeal No. 7 of 2012. The said special appeal was disposed of vide order dated 4.4.2013. Consequent to the said order, the petitioner was again reinstated on 16.9.2014 and he has continued till attaining the age of retirement. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that in view of dismissal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the respondents have stopped the salary from 2010, hence, he represented the matter before the authorities and the authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 25.01.2017. The rejection was made mainly on the ground that the petitioner had concealed certain facts, particularly dismissal of Writ A No. 7696 of 1986. Hence, in view of concealing the said fact, the petitioner has continued on the said post, he is not entitled for the salary. Apart from that, the petitioner has also not worked in that particular period. As the petitioner has not worked, he is not entitled for salary as per the principle of 'no work no pay'. 5. Further, in the counter affidavit, they have stated that as per the petitioner the date of his retirement was on 11.05.2016, but he was retired on 31.03.2017. As per the Government Order, the teacher who attains the age in the middle of academic year, he is entitled to continue till the end of academic year and as per the Government Order dated 8.10.1997, the petitioner is not entitled to include his ad hoc services for pension. Accordingly, his services is less than 10 years, he is not entitled for pension. 6. Replying to the said assertions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Rule 19 (b) of the Uttar Pradesh State Aided-Educational Institution Employees' Contributory Provident Fund-Insurance-Pension Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), which reads as below: "19. Continuous temporary or officiating service followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or another post shall also count as qualifying service." 7. As per the above statutory provision, the petitioner's ad hoc appointment has to be counted for his qualifying service, hence, the appointment as an ad hoc in 1983 and admittedly, the petitioner continued on the said post and his services were regularized in 2007. Hence, he is entitled to benefit of Rule 19 (b) of the Rules. Though, he has specifically contended about the said aspect, no reply has been given in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. 8. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has made his submission with regard to entitlement of salary from August, 2012 to 15.09.2014 as the petitioner is willing to work but he was not permitted to work. In the said circumstances, the principle of 'no work no pay' would not be applicable in the instant case. As far as the concealment is concerned, the writ petition has been dismissed as infructuous and the respondents were also party. 9. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed in 1983 as an ad hoc teacher and he continued till 2010 and his services were also regularized on 4.6.2007. If that being the situation, the respondents ought not to have stopped payment in 2010 only on the ground of dismissal of the writ petition and again it is admitted fact that the said order was interdicted by this Court in intra-court appeal. 10. In the said circumstances, as the petitioner was prohibited to work from the period August, 2012 to 15.09.2014, the respondents cannot deny the payment of salary. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.1.2017 passed by D.I.O.S., Kasganj is set aside with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for release of salaries from August, 2012 to 15.09.2014. Further, as per the statutory provision, more particularly, Rule 19(b) of the Rules, the respondents ought to have considered the services of the petitioner as an ad hoc teacher for the purpose of determining qualifying service for eligibility to pension and accordingly, considered the case of the petitioner as an ad hoc services under Rule 19(b) of the Rules and release all post retiral benefits. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Noman (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad