Entitlement to pensionary benefits despite absence due to a medical condition and the lack of disciplinary proceedings, as established in the judgment of Satya Narain Tripathi v. State of U.P. and others, Special Appeal No. 18 of 2016.

Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J.

The petitioner is a retired Assistant Teacher of a Junior High School. He has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 09.04.2014 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari rejecting his claim for pension.

2. The brief reference to the factual aspect would suffice. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher at Primary School Bandoiya, Block Bhetuwa, District Sultanpur on 24.12.1981. The institution is run and managed by the Basic Education Board. He was promoted on the post of the Head Master on 08.02.1999.

3. It is stated that unfortunately the petitioner met with an incident and sustained grievous injuries. His left hand had to be amputated. Thus, he is now physically disabled person. Copy of the certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer regarding his disability is on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition.

4. It is stated that the petitioner had continuously worked and when his salary was stopped without any justifiable reason, he made several representations without any result, hence, he had instituted a writ petition no.6848 (S/S) of 2013. The said writ petition was disposed of on 18.11.2013 issuing a direction upon the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner within a specified period. When the order of writ Court was not complied, the petitioner preferred a Contempt Petition No.838 (C) of 2014 wherein a notice was issued to the respondents. However, a statement was made by the learned Standing Counsel that some order has been passed on his representation and only he was found to be entitled for the payment of G.P.F. On the basis of the said statement of the learned Standing Counsel, the contempt petition was dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to take recourse of such remedy which is available under the law.

5. It is stated that the petitioner's representation has been rejected amongst other grounds that there was break in his service from 07.08.2006 and in the meantime he retired, therefore, he is not entitled for pension. Reference has been made to some of the provisions of Financial Handbook and the Government Orders.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed. The stand taken in the counter affidavit is that he was continuously absent from the duty since December 2005 for a period of eight years, hence he is not entitled for the payment of salary for the said period on the basis of the principle 'no work no pay'.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the service record of the petitioner indicates that from the date of his initial appointment, he has excellent service record. It is stated that due to the accident, he was on the medical leave and later, he joined the institution. Hence, he was entitled for his salary.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a show cause notice was issued to him but he joined after he was declared fit, thus, no further action was taken by the respondents.

9. Lastly, it was urged that if the allegation of the respondent is correct that the petitioner was absent without any leave, the appropriate action ought to have taken against him in accordance with law but respondents, who were fully aware about misfortune of the petitioner that he had met with a serious accident and his hand had been amputated, hence authority concerned did not take any action against the petitioner.

10. It is also urged that in the impugned order it has been recorded that the petitioner's service from 1981 to 2004 is satisfactory and on the basis of the said period alone, the petitioner is entitled for the pension as he has completed more than 24 years uninterrupted service. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Satya Narain Tripathi v. State of U.P. and others, Special Appeal No. 18 of 2016. The relevant part of the judgment reads as under:

"However, the aspect which needs to be considered by the Court is whether, as s