Allahabad High Court

VIRENDRA PAL SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

Decided: 23 September 2026
Bench: MANISH KUMAR NIGAM

Holding

The Tribunal’s order for payment of all consequential benefits, affirmed by the High Court, is binding and the respondent must grant those benefits; the "no work, no pay" principle does not apply to a reinstated government servant.

Summary

The petitioner, a former police constable dismissed in 1993, obtained a reversal of his termination from the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Tribunal in 2000, which directed that he be reinstated and granted all consequential benefits. The Tribunal's order was affirmed by the High Court in 2017, leading to his reinstatement in June 2017. In May 2020, the respondent authority denied the petitioner any back wages or other benefits, relying on the principle of "no work, no pay" and Rule 54(5) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal’s directive for full consequential benefits was final and binding, and that the "no work, no pay" rule does not apply to reinstated government servants, citing Dinesh Prasad v. State of U.P. (2024). The Court held the 2020 order arbitrary, set it aside, and issued a mandamus directing the respondent to grant all benefits as ordered by the Tribunal.

Issues considered

Whether the Tribunal’s order directing entitlement to all consequential benefits, affirmed by the High Court, is binding on the respondent.
Whether the principle of "no work, no pay" under Rule 54(5) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules applies to a government servant reinstated after wrongful termination.
Whether the respondent can lawfully deny back wages and other benefits despite the Tribunal’s directive.

Legislation cited

U.P. Fundamental Rules — s. Rule 54(5)

Subjects

reinstatement
consequential benefits
service termination
public service tribunal
mandamus
no work no pay
U.P. Fundamental Rules
government servant

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 2266 of 2026

Virendra Pal Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ambuj Kumar Mishra, Vineet Kumar
Sharma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

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
WRIA No. 2266 of 2026
2

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
3

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.

(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
September 24, 2026
Nitika Sri.

Digitally signed by :-
NITIKA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…