HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 40333 of 2014 Court No. - 34 (Sl. No. 15) HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prem Narain Rai, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 14.9.2013, whereby the claim of the petitioner for the calculation of his retiral dues on the basis of continuity in service, as directed by this Court vide order dated 28.5.2012 in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 4467 of 2005 ( Ram Ratan Paswan Vs. The Union of India and others), has been denied by the respondents and it has been held that he will not be entitled for the pensionary benefits on the basis of the notional salary and grade pay which would have been available to the petitioner, had he been continued in service. Further prayer has been made in the writ petition by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to calculate the petitioner's salary on the notional basis for the period he was out of service and accordingly fix the pay scale, grade pay and the pensionary and other dues and pay to the petitioner accordingly. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner, herein, was working as Constable General Diary (G.D.) in Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Om Prakash Mani Tripathi, Rajesh Pathak, S.L.Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bajrangi Mishra, C.S.C., P.S.Pandey, Rajesh Tripathi Ram Ratan Paswan .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) CRPF 46 Battalion, Jalandhar. He applied for earned leave for 60 days from January, 2001, however, his leave was sanctioned for 30 days from 9.1.2001 to 7.2.2001 and due to the illness of the petitioner's wife, he could not report back though intimated regarding the illness of his wife. Further, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and later on the petitioner was discharged from service on the ground of unauthorised absence of the petitioner vide order dated 28.4.2001. The said dismissal order was challenged by the petitioner in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 4467 of 2005 which was disposed of vide order dated 28.5.2022 with the following directions:- "In these circumstances, I set aside the discharge letter and subsequent orders pertaining to the petitioner and restored him in the service. But, for this period, the petitioner will not get any salary on the principle of "No work, No pay". However, the services of the petitioner for this period will be counted as regular services for the benefits like retiral dues and pension, etc. The petitioner is directed to join his services within a period of one month. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. " 4. From the aforesaid order, it is apparent that though the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service, however, he was denied the salary for the interregnum period i.e. from the date of discharge till his reinstatement on the basis of principle of 'no work no pay'. However, it was directed by this Court that for the purposes of calculating the retiral dues and pension etc. the aforesaid period will be counted as regular services of the petitioner and that means except the back wages and salary for the period of discharge till reinstatement, the petitioner was granted the benefit of continuity in service for all practical purposes. Thereupon the petitioner was reinstated. Accordingly, after reinstatement, petitioner was not granted regular service benefit. Being aggrieved, petitioner has WRIA No. 40333 of 2014 2 approached the respondents to grant him all benefits of salary as well as grade pay etc. vide impugned order dated 14.9.2012 passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are directions issued by this Court on 28.5.2012. It is apparent that this Court has granted the petitioner the continuity in service for all practical purposes except the back wages on the principle of no work no pay, therefore, the petitioner after reinstatement, was entitled for all benefits, in accordance with law, treating him in continuous service for the period from discharge till his reinstatement as well. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks quashing of the aforesaid order dated 14.9.2013 and a direction to the respondents to recalculate the benefits available to the petitioner with regard to basic salary and grade pay etc, treating him in continuous service for the period from discharge i.e. 28.4.2001 till his reinstatement on 26.9.2012. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have denied the claim of the regular salary and grade pay to the petitioner as this Court has categorically held that the petitioner will not be entitled for any salary for the aforesaid period, therefore, after the reinstatement, the petitioner was kept in the minimum pay scale and accordingly all the benefits have been granted in accordance with the 6th Pay Commission to the petitioner. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this court has carefully gone through the records of the case. 8. The denial to the regular salary and grade pay to the petitioner is only on the basis that this Court has directed not to pay the salary for the period when the petitioner was not in service and also in the said order dated 28.5.2012, this Court WRIA No. 40333 of 2014 3 has clarified that the petitioner will be entitled for continuity in service and all other benefits. Therefore, the action of the respondent is not justified, granting minimum pay scale and grade pay to the petitioner. 9. In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 14.9.2013 is not justified and hence quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner in continuity in service for all practical purposes except the payment of back wages for the period when the petitioner was not in service, treating the petitioner in continuity in service for the said period as well. 10. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for all the increments, promotional grade pay etc. which would have been available, had he not been discharged from service. In such view of the matter, necessary calculation be done by the respondents within a period of three months from today and the amount found so payable to the petitioner, shall be paid within a further period of one month, failing which the amount so payable to the petitioner shall carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum. 11. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, writ petition stands allowed. September 18, 2026 n.u. WRIA No. 40333 of 2014 4 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- NASEEM UDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad