Allahabad High Court

AMAR SINGH YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: ANISH KUMAR GUPTA

Holding

The period of extraordinary leave between termination and reinstatement is to be treated as continuous service, so the petitioner’s service should be counted from his original appointment date for all consequential benefits.

Summary

The petitioner, Amar Singh Yadav, was appointed as a constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police on 1 February 1982 but was terminated on 26 June 1982. He was reinstated on 4 May 1991 by a government order that treated the intervening period as extraordinary leave, with the condition that he would not claim any financial benefits for that time. The petitioner contended that, despite the extraordinary leave, his service continuity should be counted from the original appointment date for purposes of promotion and related benefits, whereas the respondents had limited his service continuity to the reinstatement date of 30 May 1991. The High Court examined the reinstatement order and the seniority list, finding that the extraordinary leave provision ensured continuity of service for all practical purposes except salary. Consequently, the Court held that the impugned orders restricting his promotional pay scale were unsustainable and quashed them, directing the respondents to calculate his benefits from 1 February 1982, excluding salary for the leave period. The matter was remitted to the respondents for implementation within three months, and the petition was disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the period between termination and reinstatement, treated as extraordinary leave, should be counted as continuous service for promotion and other benefits.
Whether the impugned orders that limited the petitioner’s service continuity to the reinstatement date are legally valid.

Subjects

service continuity
extraordinary leave
reinstatement
promotion benefits
seniority
police constable
writ petition

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 63125 of 2017

Amar Singh Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Atmaram Nadiwal, Dinesh Kumar
Yadav, Harish Chandra Mishra,
Narendra Mohan, Om Prakash Singh,
Rajesh Singh, Rajiv Verma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 34

Sl. No. 85

HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. Heard Shri Rajesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Vijay Prakash Mishra, learned standing counsel for the State respondents.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner herein seeking quashing of
the order dated 25.09.2017 and the amended/modified order dated
25.11.2017 whereby the petitioner has been granted the promotional pay
scale treating his service with effect from 30.05.1991, when he was
reinstated in service. He further claims that he should be granted notional
grade pay treating his initial appointment from 01.02.1982.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was initially
appointed as constable in UP police department on 01.02.1982. During
the period of probation, some complaints were received with regard to
registration of criminal case against the petitioner and his services were
terminated vide order dated 26.06.1982. Later on, on representations
submitted by the petitioner vide government order dated 23.03.1991, the
directions were issued to reinstate the petitioner as constable in UP police
department after taking an undertaking from him that he will not claim
any financial benefit from the period of his termination till his
reinstatement and the period from the date of termination till his
reinstatement shall be treated as extraordinary leave granted to the
WRIA No. 63125 of 2017
2

petitioner. However, he will not claim any salary etc. for the said period.
Pursuant to the said government order, the petitioner was reinstated on
4.5.1991 and has submitted the undertaking on 04.05.1991 and he was
reinstated accordingly as constable. He was not paid salary for the period
between the order of termination till his reinstatement. However,
continuity in service in terms of the order dated 23.03.1991 was granted
to the petitioner and in the seniority list also he was treated from his initial
appointment on 01.02.1982.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the ACPs etc. has
been granted by the respondent and the subsequent grade pay has also
been granted by the respondents while counting his service only from
30.05.1991, the date of reinstatement in service. Whereas as per the order
dated 23.03.1991, since extraordinary leave was granted to the petitioner
for the period from the date of termination till his reinstatement, for all
practical purpose except the payment of salary for the said period, he was
entitled for all consequential benefits which have been denied by the
impugned orders by treating his continuity in service only from
30.05.1991. In such view of the matter, since the reinstatement order
passed by the government on 23.03.1991 itself provides that the petitioner
shall be granted extraordinary leave for the period i.e. from the date of
termination till his reinstatement without any financial benefit thus for all
practical purposes except the financial benefit of salary etc. for the said
period, the petitioner is entitled for continuity in service from his initial
appointment on 01.02.1982, which is also reflected from the seniority list
prepared on 07.06.2016 by the respondent in which the seniority of the
petitioner has been counted from 01.02.1982. Consequently, the
petitioner ought to have been granted the benefits of promotion etc. by
counting his service from 01.02.1982 and not from 30.05.1991 as has
been done by the impugned orders. Thus learned counsel for the petitioner
seeks quashing of the impugned order.

5. This court has carefully gone through the record of the case and from
perusal of the records it is apparent that the petitioner was initially
appointed on 01.02.1982. Although his services were terminated on
26.06.1982 but he was subsequently reinstated pursuant to the
Government Order dated 23.03.1991. the reinstatement order specifically
WRIA No. 63125 of 2017
3

directed that the period between termination and reinstatement be treated
as extraordinary leave, thereby ensuring continuity of service for all
practical purposes, notwithstanding the petitioner’s undertaking not to
claim back wages or financial benefits for that specific period. This
continuity is further corroborated by the seniority list dated 07.06.2016,
wherein the petitioner’s seniority is calculated from his original
appointment date i.e. 01.02.1982. Thus in the considered opinion of this
Court the impugned orders dated 25.09.2017 and 25.11.2017, which
restricted the petitioner’s promotional pay scale and ACP benefits by
counting service only from the date of reinstatement 30.05.1991 are
legally unsustainable.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 25.09.2017 and the
amended/modified order dated 25.11.2017 are hereby quashed. The
matter is remitted back to the respondents to calculate all the financial
benefits treating the continuity of service of the petitioner from
01.02.1982 and grant him all consequential benefits except the payment
of salary for the period from the date of his termination till his
reinstatement. This exercise shall be completed by the respondents within
a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of
this order.

7. With the aforesaid directions, the instant petition stands disposed of.

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
May 7, 2026
o.k.

Digitally signed by :-
OM KRISHNA CHOUDHARY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…