Manni Lal Razi Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Revenue Lucknow and Ors.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:4782

Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22079 of 2019 Petitioner :- Manni Lal Razi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Revenue Lucknow And Ors.

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶7

The petitioner claims to have been appointed on a Class IV post in Collectorate at Pratapgarh on 19.11.2007. However, vide order dated 5.10.2010 his services was terminated by the third respondent- District Magistrate, Pratapgarh, on the ground that petitioner had obtained appointment by fraud and misrepresentation on a false social status certificate (Scheduled Tribe).

¶8

The State Level Committee allowed the appeal of the petitioner returning a finding, based on the inquiry and the material that petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category.

¶9

However, petitioner was not reinstated and feeling aggrieved the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 6508 of 2014, which was disposed of by order dated 14.11.2014 directing the State respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on Class IV post.

¶10

Consequently, the petitioner came to be reappointed vide order dated 30.06.2014. The State-respondents showed reluctance to grant arrears of salary from the date of his termination i.e 05.10.2010 till the date of rejoining i.e. 04.07.2014. Thus, petitioner has been denied of his salary for the intervening period i.e. 05.10.2010 to 04.07.2014.

¶11

Aggrieved, petitioner again approached this Court by filing a petition being Writ Petition No.15883 (S/S) of 2016, which was disposed of vide order dated 08.04.2019, directing the respondents to reconsider the payment of arrears and all other consequential benefits to the petitioner. The Court while disposing of the writ petition observed as follows:

¶12

"Learned Standing Counsel in reply submits that when the order dated 05.10.2010 had not been set aside the petitioner's

¶13

service was to be governed by the order dated 30.06.2014 and he, therefore, could not pray for the arrears of the salary.

¶14

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, I am of the definite view that when the very basis the petitioner's dismissal order dated 05.10.2010, that is the Caste Certificate was found to be correct, then the order dated 05.10.2010 ought to have been set aside and he should have been granted all consequential benefits.

¶15

Under such circumstances the petitioner may once again apply before the respondents praying to them that the order dated 05.10.2010 be also set aside as the ground on the basis of which it had been passed was no longer there. When thereafter if the order is set aside the respondents may reconsider the payment of arrears and may also reconsider the granting of all consequential benefits to him without getting affected by the orders impugned dated 09.02.2015 and 18.01.2016."

¶16

It is further submitted that in the identical circumstances, services of one Sri Sunder Lal Razi was also terminated on the same ground that he had obtained the appointment by fraud misrepresentation of false status certificate (Schedule Tribes) as the ground taken in the case of the petitioner while terminating his services. The State Level Committee allowed the appeal in the case of Sunder Lal Razi and arrears of salary was rejected to Shri Sunder Lal Razi on the principle of "No Work No Pay" as it has been passed in the case of the petitioner Sri Sunder Lal Razi has approached this Court by filing Writ-A No.22138 of 2019, which was allowed vide judgement and order dated 20.04.2022 with the following directions which are quoted hereinbelow:

¶17

"In these circumstances, the writ petition succeeds and, is accordingly, allowed by passing the following directions:

¶18

i) the impugned order dated 20.06.2019 passed by the third respondent-District Magistrate, Pratapgarh, is set-aside and quashed,

¶19

ii) petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including salary w.e.f. 18.10.2010 to 30.06.2014.

¶20

iii) seniority of the petitioner shall also be protected.

¶21

It is provided that the arrears of salary shall be computed and released within two months from date of service of certified copy of this order, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the due date till the

¶22

date of payment."

¶23

In compliance of the judgement of this Court dated 20.04.2022 all the dues alongwith arrears of salary has been paid to Sri Sunder Lal Razi vide order dated 28.05.2022, the copy of which has been produced during the course of argument, which is taken on record and the case of petitioner is covered by the judgement and order passed in the case of Sri Sunder lal Razi hence the petitioner is entitled for the parity of the same.

¶24

In compliance, the impugned order dated 21.06.2019 has been passed by the third respondent- District Magistrate, Pratapgarh, declining to consider the claim of the petitioner on the principle of "No Work No Pay" as the ground taken in the case of Sri Sunder Lal Razi that since the petitioner was out of service for the period from 5.10.2010 to 4.7.2014, therefore, petitioner would not be entitled to arrears of salary and other consequential benefits.

¶25

It is not the case of the State-respondents that petitioner was avoiding to perform service, rather, petitioner was kept out of service, pursuant to the order of termination on the plea that the petitioner had obtained appointment by misrepresenting his social status. The stand of the State-respondents was subsequently negated and found to be incorrect by the State Level Committee. In other words, the social status certificate produced by the petitioner belonging to the category of Schedule Tribe was found to be genuine. In the circumstances, it was incumbent upon the State-respondents to have reinstated the petitioner with all consequential benefits, as the petitioner was kept out of service for no fault of his. Petitioner suffered at the hands of the State-respondents. The principle of 'NO WORK NO PAY' would not have been made applicable upon the petitioner, as he has not avoided performing his duties. In the given facts, it is the State-respondents, who are responsible of keeping the petitioner out of service by doubting his social status.

¶26

In these circumstances, the writ petition succeeds and, is accordingly, allowed by passing the following directions:

¶27

i) the impugned order dated 21.06.2019 passed by the third respondent-District Magistrate, Pratapgarh, is set-aside and quashed,

¶28

ii) petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including salary w.e.f. 06.10.2010 to 04.07.2014,

¶29

iii) seniority of the petitioner shall also be protected.

¶30

It is provided that the arrears of salary shall be computed and released within two months from date of service of certified copy of this order. In case the authorities failed to make payment within the time as mentioned above, the petitioner shall also be paid 6% interest on delayed payment from the date of expiry of above mentioned period till the actual payment is made.

¶31

Order Date :- 17.1.2024 S. Kumar

¶32

Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manni Lal Razi v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Revenue Lucknow and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manni Lal Razi v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Revenue Lucknow and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Kishore Mishra Pno. No. 052660577 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh Kumar Rana Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Jag Jeewan Singh and 9 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Abhay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others

Devendra Singh Vs Regional Director , Reserve Bank of India Lko. and 2 Others

Uma Kant Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Ayush Anubhag Civil Secrtt. Govt. of Up Lko. and 4 Others