Allahabad High Court

RAM RATAN PASWANversusUNION OF INDIA AND 4 OTHERS

Decided: 17 September 2026
Bench: ANISH KUMAR GUPTA

Holding

The petitioner must be treated as in continuous service for all practical purposes, except for back wages, and the respondents must recalculate and pay all salary, grade‑pay, increments and pension benefits accordingly.

Summary

Ram Ratan Paswan, a former Constable of the CRPF, was discharged in April 2001 for alleged unauthorized absence after taking leave for his wife's illness. He challenged the discharge in Writ Petition No. 4467 of 2005, and the Allahabad High Court reinstated him, directing that the period of discharge be counted as continuous service for pension and retiral benefits, but no back wages would be payable. After reinstatement in September 2012, the respondents placed him on the minimum pay scale and denied regular salary and grade‑pay for the intervening period, prompting a fresh writ petition. The petitioner argued that the earlier order entitled him to all benefits as if he had remained in continuous service, except for back wages. The Court held that the respondents' refusal to grant regular salary and grade‑pay was unjustified and quashed the impugned order, directing the respondents to recalculate and pay the petitioner all increments, promotional grade‑pay and other dues as if he had been in continuous service, with interest for delay. The petition was allowed and the respondents were given a three‑month period to compute the amount and a further month to pay it.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular salary, grade‑pay and other benefits for the period of unauthorized absence, given the earlier order granting continuity of service but denying back wages.
Whether the respondents' order placing the petitioner on the minimum pay scale is consistent with the earlier judicial direction.
How the petitioner’s retiral dues and pension should be calculated on a notional basis for the period of discharge.

Subjects

continuity of service
pension calculation
no work no pay
reinstatement
back wages
grade pay
6th Pay Commission
writ petition
retirement benefits

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 40333 of 2014

Ram Ratan Paswan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

Union Of India And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Om Prakash Mani Tripathi, Rajesh
Pathak, S.L.Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bajrangi Mishra, C.S.C., P.S.Pandey,
Rajesh Tripathi

Court No. - 34
(Sl. No. 15)
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Pathak, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Prem Narain Rai, learned counsel for the
respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
being aggrieved by the order dated 14.9.2013, whereby the
claim of the petitioner for the calculation of his retiral dues
on the basis of continuity in service, as directed by this
Court vide order dated 28.5.2012 in Writ Petition (S/S) No.
4467 of 2005 ( Ram Ratan Paswan Vs. The Union of
India and others), has been denied by the respondents and it
has been held that he will not be entitled for the pensionary
benefits on the basis of the notional salary and grade pay
which would have been available to the petitioner, had he
been continued in service. Further prayer has been made in
the writ petition by the petitioner seeking a direction to the
respondents to calculate the petitioner's salary on the
notional basis for the period he was out of service and
accordingly fix the pay scale, grade pay and the pensionary
and other dues and pay to the petitioner accordingly.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner,
herein, was working as Constable General Diary (G.D.) in
WRIA No. 40333 of 2014
2

CRPF 46 Battalion, Jalandhar. He applied for earned leave for
60 days from January, 2001, however, his leave was
sanctioned for 30 days from 9.1.2001 to 7.2.2001 and due
to the illness of the petitioner's wife, he could not report
back though intimated regarding the illness of his wife.
Further, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against
the petitioner and later on the petitioner was discharged
from service on the ground of unauthorised absence of the
petitioner vide order dated 28.4.2001. The said dismissal
order was challenged by the petitioner in the aforesaid
Writ Petition No. 4467 of 2005 which was disposed of vide
order dated 28.5.2022 with the following directions:-

"In these circumstances, I set aside the discharge letter and subsequent
orders pertaining to the petitioner and restored him in the service. But,
for this period, the petitioner will not get any salary on the principle of
"No work, No pay". However, the services of the petitioner for this period
will be counted as regular services for the benefits like retiral dues and
pension, etc. The petitioner is directed to join his services within a period
of one month.

With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. "

4. From the aforesaid order, it is apparent that though the
petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service,
however, he was denied the salary for the interregnum
period i.e. from the date of discharge till his reinstatement on
the basis of principle of 'no work no pay'. However, it
was directed by this Court that for the purposes of
calculating the retiral dues and pension etc. the aforesaid
period will be counted as regular services of the petitioner
and that means except the back wages and salary for the
period of discharge till reinstatement, the petitioner was
granted the benefit of continuity in service for all practical
purposes. Thereupon the petitioner was reinstated.
Accordingly, after reinstatement, petitioner was not granted
regular service benefit. Being aggrieved, petitioner has
WRIA No. 40333 of 2014
3

approached the respondents to grant him all benefits of
salary as well as grade pay etc. vide impugned order dated
14.9.2012 passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition filed
by the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are
directions issued by this Court on 28.5.2012. It is apparent that
this Court has granted the petitioner the continuity in service
for all practical purposes except the back wages on the
principle of no work no pay, therefore, the petitioner after
reinstatement, was entitled for all benefits, in accordance with
law, treating him in continuous service for the period from
discharge till his reinstatement as well. Therefore, learned
counsel for the petitioner seeks quashing of the aforesaid order
dated 14.9.2013 and a direction to the respondents to
recalculate the benefits available to the petitioner with regard
to basic salary and grade pay etc, treating him in continuous
service for the period from discharge i.e. 28.4.2001 till his
reinstatement on 26.9.2012.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
respondents have denied the claim of the regular salary and
grade pay to the petitioner as this Court has categorically held
that the petitioner will not be entitled for any salary for the
aforesaid period, therefore, after the reinstatement, the
petitioner was kept in the minimum pay scale and accordingly
all the benefits have been granted in accordance with the 6th
Pay Commission to the petitioner.

7. Having heard the rival submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties, this court has carefully gone through
the records of the case.

8. The denial to the regular salary and grade pay to the
petitioner is only on the basis that this Court has directed not
to pay the salary for the period when the petitioner was not in
service and also in the said order dated 28.5.2012, this Court
WRIA No. 40333 of 2014
4

has clarified that the petitioner will be entitled for continuity in
service and all other benefits. Therefore, the action of the
respondent is not justified, granting minimum pay scale and
grade pay to the petitioner.

9. In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated
14.9.2013 is not justified and hence quashed. The respondents
are directed to treat the petitioner in continuity in service for
all practical purposes except the payment of back wages for
the period when the petitioner was not in service, treating the
petitioner in continuity in service for the said period as well.

10. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for all the
increments, promotional grade pay etc. which would have been
available, had he not been discharged from service. In such
view of the matter, necessary calculation be done by the
respondents within a period of three months from today and the
amount found so payable to the petitioner, shall be paid within
a further period of one month, failing which the amount so
payable to the petitioner shall carry interest at the rate of 8%
per annum.

11. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, writ petition
stands allowed.

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
September 18, 2026
n.u.

Digitally signed by :-
NASEEM UDDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…