Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
Abdul Wahab – Appellant
Versus
State Of Up – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's appointment and subsequent legal challenges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. compliance with earlier court orders regarding reinstatement. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments regarding entitlement to back wages and pension. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's directive for payment of back wages and pension. (Para 12) |
1. Heard Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the respondent-institution and the approval was granted by the District Inspector of Schools on 28.5.1994. The petitioner joined the institution on 30.5.1994 after issuance of appointment letter. The petitioner was however, no paid salary and thereafter, on 7.6.1994 the District Inspector of Schools passed an order suspending the operation of the order dated 28.5.1994 granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner. Against the aforesaid order dated 7.6.1994, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.24031 of 1994. In the meantime, an order was passed directing payment of salary to another employee Suhail Alam Numani on 7.6.1997, who was
The principle of 'no work no pay' does not apply when an employee is prevented from working by the employer's unjust actions, especially after judicial reinstatement.
The principle of 'no work no pay' is inapplicable when an employee is willing to work but is prevented from doing so by the employer's actions or failure to comply with reinstatement orders, entitlin....
The principle of 'No Work, No Pay' cannot be invoked when an employee is willing to work but is kept out due to the actions of the employer, which were ultimately declared illegal by judicial orders.
The principle of 'no work, no pay' cannot be invoked when an employee is unlawfully prevented from discharging their duties, affirming the entitlement to pay during such periods.
The court reaffirmed that judicial decisions regarding employment rights must be respected, and that grounds for termination or denial of appointment must be substantiated with valid evidence, partic....
Court emphasized compliance with prior mandates for salary disbursement, clarifying that appointment in non-sanctioned posts does not eliminate rights established by previous rulings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
