JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 29.10.2018 whereby the respondents have declined payment of petitioner's arrears of salary for the period 14.9.2011 to 1.5.2017 on the principle of "no work no pay". A mandamus is further sought ordering the respondents to sanction and disburse arrears of salary for the period 14.9.2011 to 1.5.2017 with interest at such rate as the Court may specify. There is a further direction sought commanding the respondents to sanction Assured Career Progression for the petitioner also, within a specified period of time.

2. Parties have exchanged affidavits.

3. Admit.

4. By consent of parties, heard forthwith.

5. Heard Mr. Siddharth Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr Praveen Ojha, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the state.

6. The short facts giving rise to this petition are that the respondents who are the Government of U.P. issued an advertisement for the post of Nalkoop Mistri (for short 'the post in question) on 09.08.2004. The petitioner was duly selected, and consequent upon selection, appointed to the post in question on 12.10.2004. His services were regularized by an order dated 15.07.2010 w.e.f. 08.10.2007. The petitioner was served a show cause notice on 10.12.2010 founded on a complaint to the effect that the petitioner did not possess the necessary Trade Certificate from the I.T.I. which vitiated his eligibility for appointment as a Nalkoop Mistri. The petitioner submitted a reply saying that he had been selected after following the due procedure. It was pointed out that in the advertisement there was a stipulation as regards the essential qualifications which said: "High School/I.T.I. with five years experience". The petitioner's case is that he is a Matriculate and therefore, he fulfils one of the alternate conditions. The petitioner's services were terminated by an order dated 14.09.2011. In substance, the order dated 14.09.2011 is not an order of termination, in the sense it is understood in the disciplinary jurisdiction. It is in substance an order of cancellation of appointment on account of the petitioner not fulfilling requisite qualifications owing to the respondents' stand taken at the relevant time. The petitioner's appeal and review to the departmental authorities met with failure. Consequently he instituted Writ-A No. 52876 of 2012. The said petition was heard and allowed by an order dated 07.12.2016 holding that the order of cancellation of appointment impugned in the writ petition did not show that the authorities had considered the petitioner's case about his eligibility founded on what was mentioned in the advertisement. The matter was remitted to the respondents to take a decision afresh, bearing in mind the guidance in the judgment and after hearing the petitioner.

7. Consequent upon the matter being placed before the respondents, they passed an order dated 28.04.2017 holding that indeed the petitioner fulfilled the qualifications as advertised, though he did not fulfil the qualifications as provided under the Rules. The respondents proceeded by their order dated 28.04.2017 to set aside the earlier order dated 14.09.2011 terminating the petitioner's services and reinstated him with immediate effect to the post in question. There is no further condition, limitation or inhibition attached to the order dated 28.04.2017, reinstating the petitioner. At that stage, the petitioner made an application on 07.10.2017 followed by another dated 3.05.2018, whereby he said that he had been forced to stay away from his duties, in consequence of the order dated 14.09.2011 for no fault of his, and was therefore, entitled to the arrears of salary for the period 14.09.2011 to 01.05.2017. By the order impugned, the said application has been rejected.

8. Mr. Siddharth Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is manifestly illegal because the petitioner remained out of service on account of an