HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 2266 of 2026 Court No. - 33 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J. 1. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 04.05.2020 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah, District Etawah. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Police Constable in the year 1979. Thereafter, by punishment order dated 21.09.1993, the service of the petitioner was terminated. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was rejected in the year 1994. Both the orders were challenged by the petitioner by filing a claim petition before the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, being O.A. No. 1421 of 1994. The said O.A. was allowed by the Tribunal by order dated 15.02.2000 and the punishment order dated 21.09.1993 and the appellate order of March, 1994 was set aside. It was also directed by the Tribunal that the petitioner will be entitled for all consequential benefits. The order of Tribunal is annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. The order dated 15.02.2000 passed by the Tribunal was challenged by State in a petition being Service Bench No. 1592 of 2000, State of U.P. Through Secy. Vs. Virendra Pal Singh. The said petition was dismissed by this Court by order dated 24.03.2017. The order dated 15.02.2000 passed by the Tribunal was affirmed by this Court and the order passed by the High Court dated 24.03.2017 become final as the same was not further challenged by the respondent authorities. After the order dated 24.03.2017, the petitioner was reinstated in service by order dated 19.06.2017. The said order is annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. The petitioner thereafter claimed consequential benefits Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ambuj Kumar Mishra, Vineet Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Virendra Pal Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) after reinstatement in pursuance to the order passed by the Tribunal dated 15.02.2000. The said request of the petitioner was rejected by order dated 4.05.2020. Hence the present writ petition. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the Tribunal has directed that petitioner will be paid all consequential benefits and the said order has become final after dismissal of the petition filed by the State against the order of Tribunal, as the same was never challenged before any higher court, the respondents cannot deny the consequential benefits. 4. The stand taken in the counter affidavit is that full gratuity amount, leave encashment and commutation amount have been paid to the petitioner and as far as back wages are concerned, regarding the period when the petitioner has not worked, the competent authority has passed the order that the petitioner is not entitled for any salary relying upon the principle of no work, no pay. It has been further stated that Tribunal has also not specifically stated in its order dated 15.02.2000 that the petitioner is entitled for any back wages. The respondents in the counter affidavit has also relied upon Rule 54(5) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules wherein it is provided that the period of absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding the dismissal, removal or compulsory reinstatement, as the case may be, shall not be treated as a period spent on duty, unless the competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose. 5. In the rejoinder affidavit, petitioner has denied the averments made in the counter affidavit and has submitted that the Tribunal has categorically held that the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits. It has been further stated that principle of no work, no pay is not applicable to State Government employees and a government servant cannot be denied his entire pay and allowances for the period he was out of service and in this regard, petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed in case of Dinesh Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others; 2024 SCC OnLine All 3604. 6. Since Tribunal has allowed the O.A. after setting aside the order of punishment with further direction that petitioner will be entitled for all WRIA No. 2266 of 2026 2 consequential benefits, nothing is left to be decided by the respondents and the stand taken by the respondents that petitioner is not entitled for consequential benefits as by the order dated 19.6.2017, by which the petitioner was reinstated in the service, no such benefits have been granted, is wholly erroneous. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that order dated 04.05.2020 is wholly arbitrary and is liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 04.05.2020 is set aside. Respondent No. 4 is directed to comply with the order of Tribunal dated 15.02.2000 in letter and spirit. A mandamus is issued to respondent No. 4 to grant all the consequential benefits to which petitioner is entitled after the order of Tribunal. September 24, 2026 Nitika Sri. WRIA No. 2266 of 2026 3 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad