Allahabad High Court
RAMDULAR RAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is disposed, directing that the pending inquiry be concluded within three months and, if it confirms lawful service, the arrears claim may be entertained.
Summary
The petitioner, Ramdular Ram, filed a writ petition seeking payment of salary arrears for the period 2010‑2016. The State of U.P. and other respondents rejected the claim on two grounds: a disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner was still pending, and the original service records indicated that the petitioner had not rendered service during that period. The petitioner contended that the inquiry remained unresolved and that he possessed sufficient documentary evidence to prove his service from 2010 to 2016. The Court examined the submissions and observed that the pending inquiry must be concluded within three months from the date of the order. The Court directed that, based on the outcome of the inquiry, if the petitioner’s appointment is found to be lawful and his service proved, his claim for arrears may be considered. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed with the aforesaid direction.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of a pending disciplinary inquiry on the petitioner’s claim for salary arrears?
- Whether the petitioner has sufficient proof of service for the period 2010‑2016 to justify payment of arrears.
Subjects
- salary arrears
- pending inquiry
- service tenure
- writ petition
- administrative law
- public service
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14092 of 2020
Ramdular Ram
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gopal Ji Rai
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Gopal Ji Rai, learned counsel for petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for State-Respondents.
2. The claim of petitioner for payment of arrears of salary from 2010 to
2016 was rejected on two grounds. Firstly, there was an inquiry pending
against petitioner and secondly, on basis of original documents it was
found that petitioner has not worked during said period.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that inquiry so initiated is still
pending as well as petitioner has sufficient material to prove that he has
worked from 2010 to 2016.
4. In aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with
observation that if inquiry has not still concluded, the same may be
concluded within a period of three months from today and on basis of it’s
outcome if petitioner’s appointment is found to be legal and petitioner has
sufficient proof that he has worked between 2010 to 2016, his claim for
arrears of salary may be considered.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
March 18, 2026
AK
Digitally signed by :-
AWADESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…