High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ishwar Dev Maurya v. State Of U.P. And Another - WRIT - A No. 5249 of 2007  RD-AH 1594 (1 February 2007)
Court No. 38
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5249 of 2007
Ishwar Dev Maurya
State of U.P. and another.
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J
Petitioner has approached this court questioning the validity of the order dated 31.3.2006 passed by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh rejecting the representation of petitioner and refusing to pay salary w.e.f. 17.02.1985 to 22.12.1985. Impugned order in question reflects that petitioner has been appointed as untrained Lekhpal on temporary basis. Board of Revenue decided to send for training all the untrained lekhpals, who were appointed prior to 8.5.1980 and were continuing in service and whose conduct was good. Petitioner has contended that in view of the order of Board of Revenue, petitioner was sent for training in between 1.8.1984 and 26.2.1985. Petitioner has contended that after he completed his training he joined his services on 22.12.1985. Petitioner has contended that as no renumeration was paid for the training period, various writ petitions were filed and final judgment was passed on 15.7.1992. Thereafter Government Order dated 1.9.1994 has been issued. Petitioner has contended that in compliance of the said order, remuneration was not being paid. Petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4604 of 2006 wherein this court on 24.1.2006 directed petitioner to represent the matter before the authority concerned. Thereafter pursuant to directives issued by this court, matter has been taken up and claim has been rejected, at this juncture present writ petition has been filed.
Sri P.R. Maurya, learned counsel for petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case, claim of petitioner has not at all been considered in its correct perspective and for the period starting w.e.f. 17.02.1985 to 22.12.1985, petitioner is entitled for renumeration, as such impugned decision is liable to be quashed.
Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that for the said period, petitioner has not performed and discharged any duty, as such no renumeration is admissible to him.
After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed factual position, which is emerging is that for training period starting w.e.f. 1.8.2004 upto 16.2.1985 renumeration for which petitioner was entitled for, has been accorded to petitioner. After expiry of the training period, petitioner has been accorded placement as Lekhpal on 21.12.1985 pursuant to which he joined on 22.12.1985, as far as this particular period is concerned, petitioner has not at all functioned and was not at all connected with training, as such no remuneration has been ensured. In the present case, rightly on the principle of no work no work, petitioner is not entitled for any remuneration, as undisputed position is that for the period w.e.f. 17.02.1985 to 21.12.1985; petitioner has not undergone any training, nor has functioned, as such, claim set up by petitioner is misconceived.
Consequently, writ Petition is devoid of substance and same is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.