DINESH CHANDRA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
LAWS(ALL)-2016-1-153
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on January 21,2016

DINESH CHANDRA MISHRA Appellant
VERSUS
State of U.P. and Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Rajan Roy, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for the other opposite parties.
(2.) The petitioner herein is an employee of the Lucknow Development Authority. He has filed this writ petition challenging an order dated 11.03.2015 passed in purported compliance of the orders of this Court dated 02.12.2014 passed in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner bearing No. 6951(SS) of 2014 declining his claim for salary w.e.f. August, 2014 on the ground that he had not attended the office being paralysed, therefore, he is not entitled to the salary on the Principle of 'No Work No Pay'. It has further been recorded in the impugned order that Sec. 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (For short 'Act, 1995) does not extend to granting protection to such an employee.
(3.) According to the petitioner, while returning from duty on 19.02.2007 he met with a mishap resulting in grievous head injuries consequently he went into a paralytic state of the body on account of which he was not able to attend the office though he had informed the authorities about this fact who were aware of the same. He was paid salary from 2007 to July, 2014. The salary for the month of August, 2014 was arbitrarily stopped, therefore, he met the Vice Chairman of the authority on 05.11.2014 raising a grievance in this regard. The said Vice Chairman is said to have ordered an inquiry into the matter but it was not conducted. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court bearing No. 6951(SS) of 2014 which was disposed of on 02.12.2014 with a direction to the Vice Chairman of the LDA to consider the application of the petitioner dated 05.11.2014 sympathetically within a period of two months having due regard to the provisions of the Act, 1995. Inspite of the orders of this Court the said application was not disposed of instead a notice dated 28.01.2015 was issued inter alia alleging unauthorized absence from duty as also second marriage during subsistence the first one. He was asked to show cause as to why he should not be compulsorily retired. It is alleged by the petitioner that he could not submit his reply to the notice dated 28.01.2015 on account of his paralytic medical condition.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.