- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE petitioner proceeded on leave which was sanctioned Earned Leave in the year 1974, and thereafter, he did not report for duty. The services of the petitioner was terminated in 1978 for unauthorized absence. The petitioner had challenged the termination order by filing Claim Petition No. 142/7/V/80 of 1979 before the State Public Services Tribunal, U.P. which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 08.12.1981. Petitioner aggrieved by the said order preferred Writ Petition No. 524 of 1982 before this Court which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 12.04.1989. In pursuance of the order of this Court, the petitioner was re -instated by order dated 16.02.1990. The re -instatement order clearly stated that the petitioner's claim for salary for the period under termination shall be subject to the result of the out come of the pending disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner again approached the Tribunal by filing Claim Petition No. 248 of 1991 as no action was taken by the respondents in completing the enquiry. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a charge -sheet and the enquiry was completed and enquiry report dated 21.02.1992 was served. In the meantime, the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 01.03.1995 directed the enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry by an officer who is well versed with the procedure for holding departmental enquiry. Petitioner again preferred Writ Petition No. 3530 (SS) of 1995 before this Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, an order dated 09.02.1996 was passed by the appointing authority on the basis of enquiry report dated 30.06.1995 stating that the petitioner was not entitled for salary for the period 16.04.1974 to 30.12.1978 and for the period 31.12.1978 to 06.03.1990 on the basis of the rule of 'No work No pay' as the petitioner absented unauthorizedly without permission. Aggrieved by order dated 09.02.1996, the petitioner filed another Writ Petition No. 5054 (SS) of 1996 and the same was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. Petitioner thereafter filed Claim Petition No. 2596 of 1997 before the Tribunal for quashing of order dated 09.02.1996 and for refund of amount of Rs. 4584.79/ -, deducted from monthly salary of the petitioner. The claim petition was decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 22.04.2004 wherein the Tribunal observed that the order dated 09.02.1996 deserved to be set aside only to the extent of recovery of Rs. 4584.79/ -. Aggrieved by said order, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1320 of 2002 challenging the said order.
(3.) THIS Court heard the both the petitions i.e. Writ Petition No. 1320 of 2002 and 3530 of 1995 and by a common judgment and order dated 10.07.2007 held as under: - "However with respect to entitlement of the petitioner for the aforesaid period, we, at this stage, do no express any final opinion since the matter is yet to be decided afresh by the authorities concerned and therefore we leave it open to the authorities to take a decision in the light of law as discussed above. Before parting it may also be observed that during the pendency of this matter, petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2001. In the result, both the writ petitions are disposed of finally with the directions that the competent authorities shall take a final decision as required by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 01.03.1995 passed in claim petition no. 248 of 1991 and order dated 22.04.2002 passed in claim petition no. 2596 of 1997 within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Consequently, they will also take a decision in respect of entitlement of the petitioner for salary for the period he remained out of service i.e. 31.12.1978 to 06.04.1990. The said decision would also be taken within the aforesaid period in the light of the observations made above and law laid down in the cases as discussed above. The petitioner is not entitle for any arrears of salary for the period from 16.04.1974 to 30.12.1978 and the decision of the authorities and the Tribunal to this extant confirmed. Pensionary benefits of the petitioner shall also be calculated accordingly as consequence of the aforesaid final order passed in prusuance of this order within a further period of four months thereafter and the amount found payable to the petitioner shall be paid to him within further three months thereafter." In pursuance of said judgment and order, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 20.10.2007. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition and has also sought a writ of mandamus for payment of arrears for the period 31.12.1978 to 06.03.1990.;