Sujeet Kumar Moitra v. State of U.P. and Others

2025:AHC:169288 Reserved on : 15.09.2025 Delivered on : 23.09.2025 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 62565 of 2010 Sujeet Kumar Moitra …..Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and Others …..Respondents Counsel for Petitioner : J.K. Mishra, Parveen Kumar Shukla, Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, Ranjeet Kumar Mishra, Ranjit Saxena, Vijay Gautam Counsel for Respondents : Anubhav Singh, Dr. Suman Yadav, Komal Mehrotra, Pankaj Kumar Shukla Court No.- 5 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMMSHERY, J.

¶1Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Usha Kiran, learned counsel for respondents.

¶2The petitioner, a Meter Inspector in Electricity Distribution Divison, Govind Nagar, Kanpur, has approached earlier this Court when his services were dispensed with by way of a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12018 of 2003. The said Writ Petition was allowed by an order dated 21.02.2009, whereby he was reinstated, however, issue of fresh inquiry and of back wages was kept open and for reference its relevant part is reproduced hereinafter :- "The position which emerges in the present case is that after earlier order of punishment had been passed on 21.11.2002, petitioner joined his duties on 07.12.2002 and thereafter, petitioner disappeared, qua which complaint was made on

15.01.2003 and 25.02.2003, mentioning therein that petitioner was not taking interest in his work. After said complaint had been made taking into account the past conduct of the petitioner, the Managing Director of KESA proceeded to pass the impugned order on 28.02.2003. Said order cannot be sustained, inasmuch as once services of petitioner were being dispensed with on charges that he was not taking interest in his work, then holding of inquiry was condition precedent, instead of proceeding to pass order dispensing with his services, as such order dated 28.02.2003 cannot be sustained. Consequently, present writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. Impugned order dated 28.02.2003 is quashed. However, passing of this order will not prevent the respondents from undertaking disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law, and in respect of back wages as well as in respect of subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner, decision shall be taken by the authorities concerned in accordance with law. "

¶3In aforesaid circumstances, the respondents have passed an order dated 06.05.2010, whereby petitioner was reinstated but claim for back wages and subsistence allowance was rejected on principle of 'No Work No Pay', taking note that he has already crossed age of superannuataion. For reference the said order is reproduced hereinafter :- "्ቦी सुजीत कुमार मोइ्ቔा, मीटर इन्सपेक्टर वि्ቕुत वितरण खण्ड गोविन्दनगर, केस्को कानपुर के ्ቛारा अपने काኘ᭡" में रूचि& न लि(ኘ᭡े जाने तथा काኘ᭡* से अनुपቝኌस्थत रहने के कारण उनकी सेाኘ᭡ें केस्को के काኘ᭡ा*(ኘ᭡ ्ሺ ाप सं० 184/एम० डी०/कैम्प/03 विदनांक

28.02.03 के ्ቛारा तत्का( ्ቚभा से समा्቎ कर दी गኘ᭡ी थी। ्ቦी मोइ्ቔा ने अपनी सेासमावि्቎ के उ्ሹ आदेश को मा० उ्ሴ न्ኘ᭡ाኘ᭡ा(ኘ᭡ में ኘ᭡ाचि&का सं0 12018/03 विनेशिशत कर &ुनौती दी। मा० उ्ሴ न्ኘ᭡ाኘ᭡ा(ኘ᭡ ्ቛारा ኘ᭡ाचि&का सं० 12018/03 में पारिरत आदेश विदनांक 21.12.09 के अनुपा(न में ्ቦी एस०के० मोइ्ቔा, मीटर इन्सपेक्टर को विदनांक

28.02.03 से सेा में विनम्नलि(लिखत शत" के ्ቚचितबन्धाधीन पुनस्था*विपत विकኘ᭡ा जाता है:- 1- ्ቦी एस० के० मोइ्ቔा

, मीटर इन्सपेक्टर ्ቛारा

्ቧ* की अचिध्ቧ*ता आኘ᭡ु पूण* कर

(ेने पर उन्हें विदनांक

30.06.06

से सेाविनृ्ቈ हुआ माना जाए ।

2- ्ቦी एस० के० मोइ्ቔा

, मीटर इन्सपेक्टर ने अपनी सेासमावि्቎ की चितशिथ से सेाविनृलि्ቈ

की चितशिथ

30.06.06

तक कोई विभागीኘ᭡ काኘ᭡* सम्पाविदत नहीं विकኘ᭡ा है

, अतः उन्हें

" काम

नहीं , तो ेतन नहीं

", के सिस्ቍान्त के आधार पर उ्ሹ अचिध के ेतनाविद का भुगतान

अनुमन्ኘ᭡ नहीं होगा। 2 of 6 3- ्ቦी एस० के० मोइ्ቔा, मीटर इन्सपेक्टर की सेाኘ᭡ें सिजस आधार पर समा्቎ की गኘ᭡ी थी उसकी जाँ& ्ቦी अरुण कुमार, अधी्ቌण अशिभኘ᭡न्ता (वि०) वि्ቛतीኘ᭡, फज(गंज, केस्को के माध्ኘ᭡म से कराकर आश्ኘ᭡क काኘ᭡*ाही की जाए ।"

¶4Undisputedly, the petitioner instead to challenge the aforesaid order and without disclosing said order, has approached this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition No.43415 of 2010. The Writ Petition was disposed of by an order dated 27.07.2010 with a direction to consider the issue of back wages. For reference, said order is reproduced hereinafter :- "It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the services of the petitioner were terminated under the order of the Managing Director, Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Ltd., Kanpur Nagar dated 28th February, 2003. The order was challenged by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12018 of 2003. The writ petition was allowed under the order dated 21st December, 2009 and the order of termination has been set aside. However, it has been provided that respondents would be at liberty to undertake the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law and in respect of back wages as well as in respect of subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner, decision shall be taken by the authorities concerned in accordance with law. It appears that the petitioner did not inform the Court that on the date the writ petition was decided, he had already retired from service i.e. in the year 2006 and it is in this background that the employer was permitted to conclude the

departmental proceedings

. However, nothing further is required to be added on that score, inasmuch as the Court left it open to the authorities to examine the issue with regard to the permanent of back wages and the other benefits as well as in respect of subsistence allowance in accordance with law. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no.2 to take appropriate decision in the matter of petitioner as per the directions issued by this Court under order dated 21st December, 2009 referred to above at the earliest possible preferably within eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. "

¶5In pursuance of above order, claim of petitioner was again considered and was again rejected by an order dated

21.09.2010 that issue of back wages and subsistence allowance 3 of 6 was already considered and rejected when petitioner was reinstated by an order dated 06.05.2010, which remained unchallenged and therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent to review it. For reference relevant part of aforesaid order dated 21.09.2010 is reproduced hereinafter :- "शቦ ी‌सुजीत‌कु मार‌मोइतቔ ा, मीटर‌इन् सपेक् टर, वि व्ቕ ुत‌वि वतरण‌खण् ड‌तथा‌काय᭡ र‌से गोवि वन् दनगर, के स् को‌दቛ ारा‌अपने‌काय᭡ र‌ममं‌रू धि च‌न‌लि लय᭡ े‌जाने‌तथा‌काय᭡ र‌से‌अनुपसኌ स् थत रहने‌के ‌कारण‌उनकी‌सेवाय᭡ मं‌के स् को‌के ‌काय᭡ ारलय᭡ ‌जሺ ाप‌सं०‌184/एम०डी०/कै म् प‌/ 03 वि दनांक‌29.02.03 दቛ ारा‌तत् काल‌पቚ भाव‌से‌समा् ‌कर‌दी‌गय᭡ ी‌थी‌।‌शቦ ी‌मोइतቔ ा‌ने‌अपनी सेवा‌समावि ् ‌के ‌उकሹ ‌आदेश‌के ‌वि वरू दቍ ‌मा०‌उचሴ ‌न् य᭡ ाय᭡ ालय᭡ , इलाहाबाद‌के ‌सम+ቌ य᭡ ाधि चका‌सं०‌12018/03 वि नवेणि शत‌कर‌चुनौती‌दी।‌मा०‌उचሴ ‌न् य᭡ ाय᭡ ालय᭡ ‌ममं‌वादी‌दቛ ारा य᭡ ोजि जत‌य᭡ ाधि चका‌सं0 12018/03 ममं‌पारि रत‌आदेश‌वि दनांक‌21.12.09 के ‌अनपु ालन‌ममं के स् को‌मुख् य᭡ ालय᭡ ‌के ‌काय᭡ ारलय᭡ ‌जሺ ाप‌सं0 12018/03/391 ‌वि दनांक‌‌06.05.10 ‌‌दቛ ार‌ा ‌इसका‌अनुपालन‌वि कय᭡ ा‌गय᭡ ा‌एवं‌मा०‌उचሴ ‌न् य᭡ ाय᭡ ालय᭡ ‌‌, ‌‌इलाहाबाद‌के ‌वि नदरशानुसार‌ वि वभागीय᭡ ‌जाएच‌वि कय᭡ े‌जाने‌का‌वि नणरय᭡ ‌लि लय᭡ ा‌गय᭡ ा‌एवं‌काय᭡ ारलय᭡ ‌जሺ ाप‌सं०‌य᭡ ाधि चका‌सं० 12018/03/421 वि दनांक ‌ 13.05.10 दቛ ारा‌शቦ ी‌अरु ण‌कमा र , अधी+ቌ ण‌अणि भय᭡ न् त ाु ( वि व० ), वि दቛ तीय᭡ , फजलगंज , के स् को‌को‌जाएच‌अधि धकारी‌नावि मत‌वि कय᭡ ा‌गय᭡ ा। काय᭡ ारलय᭡ ‌जሺ ाप‌सं० ‌12018/03/391 वि दनांक ‌06.05.10 एवं‌काय᭡ ारलय᭡ ‌जሺ ाप‌सं० य᭡ ाधि चका‌सं०‌12018/03/421 वि दनांक‌13.05.10 की‌पቚ धि त‌उनके ‌आवासीय᭡ ‌पते‌पर भेजी‌गई‌जो‌इस‌वि टप् पणी‌के ‌साथ‌वावि पस‌आ‌गई‌वि क‌"घर‌ममं‌ताला‌बन् द" है‌।‌उकሹ काय᭡ ारलय᭡ ‌जሺ ाप‌की‌पቚ धि तय᭡ ाए‌वि वशेषቧ ‌पतቔ वाहक‌के ‌साथ‌उनके ‌आवास‌पर‌भेजे‌गय᭡ े‌तब‌भी ताला‌बन् द‌वि मला।‌अतः‌दविै नक‌जागरण‌एवं‌अमर‌उजाला‌ममं‌कቅ मशः‌वि दनांक‌08.07.10 एवं‌वि दनांक‌08.07.10 को‌सचू ना‌पቚ काणि शत‌की‌गय᭡ ी।‌इसी‌मध् य᭡ ‌शቦ ी‌मोइतቔ ा‌ने‌पनु ः‌मा० उचሴ ‌न् य᭡ ाय᭡ ालय᭡ ‌इलाहाबाद‌के ‌सम+ቌ ‌य᭡ ाधि चका‌सं0 43415/10 य᭡ ोजि जत‌की‌एवं‌वेतन भ्ቈ ो‌की‌माएग‌की‌।‌मा०‌उचሴ ‌न् य᭡ ाय᭡ ालय᭡ ‌के ‌संजሺ ान‌ममं‌वादी‌दቛ ारा‌य᭡ ह‌तथ् य᭡ ‌नहीं ‌लाय᭡ ा‌गय᭡ ा था‌वि क‌वह‌सेवावि नवृ्ቈ ‌हो‌चुका‌है‌जि जस‌कारण‌मा०‌उचሴ ‌न् य᭡ ाय᭡ ालय᭡ ‌ममं‌सेवाय᭡ ोजकों ‌को जाएच‌सम् पावि दत‌करने‌हेतु‌स् वतंतቔ ‌छोड़ ा‌था।‌इस‌सम् बन् ध‌ममं‌मा०‌उचሴ ‌न् य᭡ ाय᭡ ालय᭡ ‌की भावनाओ‌ं का‌आदर‌करते‌हुए‌सेवाय᭡ ोजकों ‌ने‌शቦ ी‌मोइतቔ ा‌के ‌वि वरू दቍ ‌के स् को‌के ‌काय᭡ ारलय᭡ ‌जሺ ाप‌सं०‌य᭡ ाधि चका‌सं० ‌‌12018/03/421 ‌‌वि दनांक ‌‌13.05.10 ‌‌दቛ ारा‌आदेणि शत‌जाएच‌ ‌वापस‌लेते‌हुए‌काय᭡ ारलय᭡ ‌जሺ ाप‌स‌ं‌0 12018/03/391 ‌‌वि दनांक‌‌06.05.10 ‌‌के ‌वि बन् द‌ु ‌03‌ पर‌आदेणि शत‌जाएच‌के ‌वि नणरय᭡ ‌को‌वि नरस् त‌करने‌का‌वि नणरय᭡ ‌लि लय᭡ ा‌है‌वि कन् तु‌उकሹ ‌काय᭡ ारलय᭡ ‌जሺ ाप‌के ‌वि बन् दु‌‌01 ‌‌एवं‌‌02 ‌‌पर‌लि लय᭡ े‌गय᭡ े‌वि नणरय᭡ ‌पर‌सेवाय᭡ ोजक‌अधि डग‌है‌क् य᭡ ों वि क‌शቦ ी‌ मोइतቔ ा‌ने‌जि जस‌अवधि ध‌ममं‌कोई‌काय᭡ र‌सम् पावि दत‌नहीं ‌वि कय᭡ ा‌ह‌ै उस‌अवधि ध‌ममं‌उन् हमं‌काय᭡ र‌नहीं तो‌वेतन‌नहीं ‌के ‌जि सदቍ ान् त‌पर‌कोई‌वेतनावि द‌का‌भुगतान‌अनुमन् य᭡ ‌नहीं ‌होगा।‌मा०‌उचሴ ‌न् य᭡ ाय᭡ ालय᭡ ‌दቛ ारा‌य᭡ ाधि चका‌स‌ं‌. 43415/10 ‌‌ममं‌पारि रत‌वि नणरय᭡ ‌वि दनांक ‌‌‌27.07.10 ‌‌क‌े ‌अनुपालन‌ममं‌शቦ ी‌मोइतቔ ा‌मीटर‌इन् सपेक् टर‌के ‌पቚ धि तवेदन‌वि दनांक ‌‌‌02.08.2010 ‌‌क‌ा तP सु ार‌वि नस् तारण‌वि कय᭡ ा‌जाता‌ह।ै " 4oofo6

¶6The aforesaid order dated 21.09.2010 is now being challenged before this Court by way of present writ petition.

¶7Learned counsel for petitioner has not able to dispute that order dated 06.05.2010 were never challenged, wherein claim of petitioner was already rejected on ground of 'No Work No Pay'. The petitioner has not come up with the clean hands in earlier round of litigation as well as in present round of litigation that claim of petitioner was already rejected.

¶8The respondents have also not disclosed the said order in first round of litigation, therefore, a direction was passed by this Court by an order dated 27.07.2010 to consider the claim of petitioner as referred above in impugned order dated

21.09.2010.

¶9The respondents took note of earlier order dated

06.05.2010 and that claim for back wages was already rejected, therefore, it was not reviewed. The judgments placed by learned counsel for petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of present case due to above legal impediment and that petitioner is not a bonafide litigant.

¶10In the aforesaid circumstances, since basic order dated

06.05.2010, whereby petitioner was reinstated and claim for back wages was rejected was never challenged and, therefore, has attained finality, therefore, the subsequent order dated

27.07.2010, which is impugned in present Writ Petition cannot be set aside or interfered.

¶11The Court also takes note of a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mahadeo Krishna Bank :2025 INSC 218, that "ordering back wages to be paid to a dismissal employee upon 5 of 6 his dismissal being set aside by a Court of law is not an automatic relief, grant of full or partial back has to be preceded by a minor fact finding exercise by the Industrial adjudication/court seized of the proceedings" i.e. whether during investigation employee was gainful employed or not and in present case, no such pleading is pleaded, therefore, also no case of payment of back wages is made out. Accordingly writ petition is dismissed. (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) September 23, 2025 P. Pandey 6 of 6 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad