Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And 3 Others vs Dr. Sneh Lata Gupta And Another on 10 October, 2025
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:180751-DB
Reserved on 08.09.2025
Delivered on 10.10.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 406 of 2021
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Dr. Sneh Lata Gupta And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Subhash Rathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Nisheeth Yadav
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
1. This review application has been filed by the original Writ Petitioners in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47854 of 2008 ( State of U.P. and 3 others Vs. Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta) seeking review of the order dated 02.01.2020 passed by a Division Bench of this Court comprising one of us i.e. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Agrawal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rejeev Misra whereby the writ petition was dismissed. The order is short but a crisp order and reads as under:-
"1. Heard Smt. Subhash Rathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri C. B. Yadav, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Alok Kumar, learned counsel for respondents.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by State of U.P. assailing judgment and order dated 24.04.2007 (Annexure-23 of the writ petition) passed by State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') allowing Claim Petition No.1168 of 2004 whereby Tribunal has set aside the order dated 11.06.2004 whereby petitioners declared period of absence from 20.10.1985 to 19.07.2002 of respondent, Dr.(Smt.) Sneh Lata Gupta, as break in service, for the reason that it was proved from record that respondent submitted her joining, but she was not allowed to join by concerned Authorities of Department, therefore, she could not join and work for the said period.
3. That being so, fault was on the part of authorities of department for which Departmental Authorities sought to punish claimant-respondent and this has been condemned by Tribunal and order impugned in claim petition has been set aside.
4. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, when questioned, could not dispute that as per enquiry conducted by department it was found that claimant-respondent actually submitted her joining report, but Departmental Authorities did not allow her to join. It is also admitted that for the earlier period of absence from 24.10.1984 to 03.09.1985 and from 15.10.1985 to 16.01.1986, claimant-respondent has submitted various leave applications but they were not disposed of at all and in these circumstances, order treating period of absence of claimant-respondent as break in service, was not justified and illegal.
5. Before us, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel could not dispute above facts and also could not show any error in the judgment and order of Tribunal, warranting any interference.
6. Writ petition lacks merit and it is dismissed accordingly.
7. Interim order, if any, stands vacated."
2. In view of the findings recorded in the order under review as well as the objections raised by Mr. C. B. Yadav, the learned Senior Counsel for opposite party/respondent-1 in opposition to the review application, we could have decided the review petition in open Court. But, since a marathon hearing took place before us as the learned Senior Counsel for applicant State of U.P. referred to various documents and pleadings in support of his submission, which were rather strenuously urged that in the facts and circumstances as have now crystalized on record, the order of the Public Service Tribunal allowing the claim Petition of opposite party/respondent-1, Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta is liable to be set aside.
3. We have heard Mr. Manish Goel, the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. A. K. Goel the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the review petitioners, State of U.P. and 3 others and Mr. C. B. Yadav, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Nisheeth Yadav, the learned counsel representing opposite party/respondent-1 Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta.
4. Brief facts shorn of unnecessary details but relevant for the controversy in hand may be taken note of. The said facts have been chronologically summarized by the tribunal in its judgement and accordingly, the same are extracted herein below:
"Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta, petitioner was appointed as a Medical Officer in the Medical & Health services of the State on 1.2.75 at Khurja, district Bulandshahr. In the 1978, she was transferred to Chaziabad. She was on earned leave from 23.9.84 to 23.10.84. Thereafter she applied for extension of earned leave from time to time from 24.10.84 till 3.9.85 and then again from 18.10.85 to 15.1.86. On 16.1.86 when she went to join at Ghaziabal she was not allowed to join her duties by the Senior Medical Superintendent. She complained and moved applications for a direction to permit her to join and ultimately by order dt. 17.7.02 she was permitted by the State Government to join at Women's Hospital, Bahpur, district Bulandshahr where she joined on 20.7.02. She was also granted notional promotion with effect from. 23.8.85 in the senior pay scale and on the post of Joint Director with effect from 10.5.90.
It is alleged by the petitioner that she was not allowed to perform duty with effect from 16.1.86 to 19.7.02 although she has always been willing to join and perform duty and she has also been moving applications from time to time for according permission to join her duty but she could be permitted to join only on 20.7.02 pursuant to order dt.17.7.02.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while permitting her to join duty by order dt.17.7.02 the State Government directed that disciplinary action for the absence period of the petitioner will be taken separately. Thereafter an enquiry was held and a committee of three Doctors, enquired into the matter and submitted its report on 21.7.2003 that the petitioner was not at fault. Since she was not allowed to join, she could not perform the duty and that the charges of private practicing during the said period levelled against her was not proved. The copy of the report is annexure no.2 to the compilation II at pages 19 and 20. However, the Government did not agree with the report of the enquiry committee and passed an order on 11.2.04 directing that the period of absence from 20.10.85 to 19.7.02 shall be treated as break in service. "
5. It is apposite to mention here that by means of order dated 11.02.2004, opposite party/respondent-1. Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta was permitted to join her duty. However, a decision was taken to initiate departmental proceedings against her and an abrupt conclusion was also recorded that the period of absence from 20.10.1985 to 19.07.2002 shall be treated as break in service.
6. In view of above, opposite party/respondent-1, Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta, approached the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow by filing a Claim Petition which was registered as Claim Petition No. 1168 of 2004 (Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) with the following prayer: (a) This Hon'ble Tribunal way kindly be pleased to Quash the punishment portion relating to the office order dated 11.06.2004 (break in service of the applicant during the period 20.10.1985 to 19.07.2002), contained in Annexure-1 to the application, and to direct the Respondents to treat the Applicant as continued in service by regularising the above period, and also to allow the applicant all the service benefit to accordingly.
(b) This Hon'ble Tribunal may also be pleased to pass any other suitable order or direction that may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case
(c) This Hon'ble Tribunal further be pleased to allow the cost of this petition/application in favour of the applicant.
7. Aforesaid Claim Petition filed by the opposite party/respondent-Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta, came to be allowed by the Tribunal vide judgement and order dated 24.04.2007. The operative portion of the order dated 24.04.2007 reads as under:
"O R D E R In the result, the reference petition is allowed. The impugned order dt.11.6.04 treating the period from 20.10.85 to 19.7.02 as break in service of the petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be treated to be on duty during the said period and shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits including salary, increment etc. No' orders for costs."
8. The Public Services Tribunal after examining the pleadings of the parties and evaluating the evidence led by the parties has returned the following findings in its order dated 24.04.2007:-
a. The petitioner ultimately joined at Bulandshahar in pursuance of the order issued by the State Government on 17.07.2002.
b. The question which needs to be examined is as to whether she-Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta did not join the duty w.e.f. 16.01.1986 to 19.07.2022 in the circumstances as stated by her or she was not willing to join the post on account of being engaged in private practice.
c. No material evidence was produced to show that Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta was ever engaged in private practice.
d. The enquiry report dated 21.07.2023 submitted by the Enquiry Committee shows that the allegations with regard to private practice by Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta were enquired into and it was found that there was no evidence available to establish that she ever did any private practice.
e. In the circumstances, the contention of Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta that she was never doing any private practice cannot be rejected whereas the contention of the opposite parties i.e. the State of U.P. and 3 others goes unsupported by any material on record. It cannot be held that the petitioner was doing private practice during the period of absence.
f. The order dated 17.07.2002 passed by the Secretary Department of Medical Health, Government of U.P., itself speaks that the petitioner made a prayer for joining service on 16.01.1986 but she could not be allowed to take over charge at that time. She again made requests for taking over the charge and it was only on her subsequent request that she was allowed to take charge by order dated 17.07.2002. If the State Government had taken six years time in acceding to the request of the petitioner for permitting her to join duty, we fail to understand as to how the period for which she was not allowed to perform duty on account of non-permitting her to join duty could be treated as unauthorised absence and break in service.
g. The Enquiry Report dated 21.07.2023 also corroborates the case of Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta that she made repeated requests for permitting her to join but she was not permitted to join and for this reason she was prevented from discharging her duty. As such, there was no fault of Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta.
h. When the petitioner went to join at Ghaziabad, the Senior Medical Superintendent, Ghaziabad did not permit her to join at Ghaziabad. No action was taken against the Senior Medical Superintendent, Ghaziabad for not allowing Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta to join her duty. In the circumstances, the period of absence of the petitioner from duty cannot be said to be unauthorized absence.
i. Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta had always been willing to take over charge but it was the authorities of the State Government itself, which did not allow Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta to join and took considerable time in allowing her to take charge at Bulandshahar. As such, the claim of petitioner is justified.
j. The State Government itself vide order dated 21.05.2005 granted senior grade to the petitioner w.e.f. 23.08.1985 and promotional scale of the post of Joint Director w.e.f. 10.05.1990 and while passing the aforesaid order, the period 21.10.1985 to 19.07.2002 has been taken into consideration as the period on duty.
9. Mr. Manish Goel, the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the review petitionners/the original writ petitioners would submit that in spite of the findings returned by the Tribunal in its order dated 24.04.2007, the order of Tribunal cannot be sustained in law and fact. As such, this Court erred in dismissing the writ petition filed by petitioners vide order dated 02.01.2020. Resultantly, the present review petition was filed seeking review of the order dated 02.01.2020 passed by this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the review petitioners/writ petitioners. In furtherance of aforesaid primary contention, he made the following submissions:
a. The order dated 02.01.2020 passed by this Court dismissing the writ petition suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. As such, the order dated 02.01.2020 is liable to be reviewed.
b. The finding returned by the Tribunal in its order dated 24.04.2007 that in the enquiry proceedings initiated against opposite party-1 Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta, it could not be established that opposite party/orespondent-1, Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta was doing private practice, is a finding which is perverse inasmuch as the Enquiry Report dated 21.07.2003 was not accepted by the State Government.
c. Since it is apparent from the record i.e. the material appended alongwith the review application that opposite party-2 Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta was engaged in private practice therefore she was not entitled to salary for the said period on the principle of no-work no-pay.
d. Irrespective of the order dated 21.05.2005 and without affecting the benefit, which has accrued in favour of opposite party/respondent-1, Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta by reason of order dated 21.05.2005 granting higher pay-scale/promotional pay-scale to her by treating her to be on duty during the period of her absence from duty, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be modified by holding that opposite party-1 shall be deemed to be in service during the period she was absent, but she shall not be entitled for payment of salary during the period she did not work on the principle of no-work no-pay .
10. On the other hand, Mr. C. B. Yadav, the learned Senior Counsel for opposite party/respondent-1, Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta vehemently opposed the review application. In opposition to the same he urged as follows:
a. The writ petition filed by the writ petitioners, State of U.P. and others, was decided by this Court vide order dated 02.01.2020 after hearing the counsel for the writ petitioners namely Mrs. Subhash Rathi, the Additional Chief Standing Counsel, High Court Allahabad. However, in the garb of review, the petitioners cannot be allowed to have re-hearing of the matter.
b. Though the writ petition was filed by Mr. D. P. Mishra, Standing Counsel and argued by Mrs. Subhas Rathi, who is still in the panel of lawyers of State Government in the High Court the review petition has been argued by the Additional Advocate General bereft of the counsel who argued the writ petition, which is contrary to the mandate of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Another Vs. N. Raju Reddiar and Another, (1997) 9SCC 736.
c. The U.P. State Public Services Tribunal while allowing the claim petition filed by the opposite party/respondent-1, Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta has recorded clear and categorical findings for accepting the claim of Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta but the said findings were not specifically challenged by the petitioners in the writ petition filed by petitioners as neither specific grounds were raised in challenge to the finding recorded by U.P. Public Services Tribunal nor specific pleadings were raised in the writ petition alleging that the said findings are illegal, perverse or erroneous.To the contrary, the order of the Tribunal was sought to be dislodged with reference to documents which were not filed before Tribunal and more particularly on the fact that there is an another view of the matter.
d. It is a cardinal rule of judicial review that if the findings cannot be dislodged, the conclusion cannot be altered. Once the findings recorded by the UP Public Services Tribunal remain intact the conclusion drawn by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal on the basis of said finding cannot be altered on the basis of another view of the matter.
e. The scope of review is primarily governed by the provisions contained in Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C., which is confined to an error apparent on the face of record and not alter the decision on account of another view of the matter.
f. The State Government is playing hot and cold at the same time. During the pendency of claim petition filed by opposite party/respondent-1, Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta, which was ultimately allowed vide order dated 24.04.2007 the State Government on its own passed the order dated 21.05.2005. By means of the said order senior grade of pay was granted to the opposite party/respondent-1 w.e.f. 23.08.1985 and thereafter, promotional scale of the post of joint director w.e.f. 10.05.1990 was granted. While passing the aforesaid order the period 20.07.1982 to 19.07.2002 was taken into consideration as period on duty. The above order has been operating since 21.05.2005 i.e. for a period of about 20 years. The submission urged by the learned Additional Advocate General that the period 20.10.1985 to 19.07.2002 should be taken as the period of service but with the condition that no salary be paid to Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta for the said period on the principle of No-Work No-Pay is misconceived. The State Government itself could have taken a decision otherwise while passing the order dated 21.05.2005 as no prohibition was existing against State Government preventing it from taking such a decision. In case the said contention is accepted, which prima-facie does not fall within the per-view of an error apparent on record, a very anomalous/paradoxical position shall emerge as the benefit granted to opposite party/respondent-1, Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta shall stand altered without the order dated 21.05.2005 being recalled/modified.
g. By means of an order dated 17.07.2002, the State Government granted permission to opposite party/respondent-1, Dr. Smt.Sneh Lata Gupta to re-join her duty. However, by the same order, the State Government took a decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against her. However, irrespective of above, a decision was taken by means of the above order that the period of absence of opposite party/respondent-1, Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta shall be treated as break in service. The same is manifestly illegal as the consequences of a process cannot precede the process itself. Once the State Government took a decision to hold disciplinary proceedings against opposite party/respondent-1, Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta then simultaneously no decision as noted above culd have been taken. The order dated 11.06.2004 reiterated the decision already taken vide order dated 17.07.2002. In view of above, no illegality can be attached to the order of the Tribunal allowing the Claim Petition filed by opposite party/respondent-1.
h. No good or sufficient ground has emerged on record so as to conclude that the order dated 02.01.2020 passed by this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners/review petitioners suffers from an error apparent on the face of record. The court while dismissing the writ petition has made clear and categorical observation in paragraph-4 of the order dated 02.01.2020 that the counsel for petitioners could not dislodge the findings returned by the Tribunal. However, in none of the grounds raised in the grounds of review, a specific ground has been raised challenging the same. To the contrary, grounds have been raised that court fail to consider different aspect of the matter as pleaded in the grounds of review, without there being the plea that the said grounds were specifically raised and pressed by the counsel for writ petitioners at the time of hearing. As such, the review petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. Having heard Mr. Manish Goel, the learned Additional Advocate General, the learned counsel for review petitioners and Mr. C B. Yadav the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Nisheeth Yadav the learned counsel representing opposite party/respondent-1, Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta, we find that the following points arise for consideration:
i. Whether the submissions urged by the learned Additional Advocate General in support of the review application, if taken as a whole, would constitute a ground that the order under review suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and therefore liable to be reviewed?
ii. Whether during the subsistence of the order of State Government dated 21.05.2005 granting higher grade of pay/promotional pay-scale to Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta by treating her to be on duty during the period of her absence even when there was no direction of any court/Tribunal to award her such benefit by treating her to be in service yet the salary for the said period can be denied to Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta by applying the principle of No-Work No-Pay.
12. The answer to the second question shall decide the fate of Question 1, and therefore, we take up the second question first.
13. The case in hand is a ridiculous one. During the pendency of claim petition filed by opposite party/respondent-21,Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta, the State Government on it's own passed an order dated 21.05.2005 deciding to grant higher grade of pay/promotional pay-scale to opposite party/repondent-1 by treating her to be on duty during the period of her absence. Once the State Government itself passed the above order on its own, the rigours contained in the order dated 11.06.2004 impugned before the Tribunal lost its effect.
14. The order of the Tribunal is sought to be dislodged with reference to the documents, which were not filed before the Tribunal as no specific pleadings have been raised in the writ petition or the review petition that the documents relied upon by petitioners/ review petitioners were filed before the Tribunal. It is well settled principle of law that review of an order cannot be sought on the basis of additional material, which is not part of the record.
15. The Court while dismissing the writ petition vide order dated 02.01.2020 made specific observation in paragraph-4 of the said order that learned counsel for petitioner when questioned about the findings returned by the tribunal could not dispute the same. From perusal of grounds of review we find that no specific ground has been raised in the grounds of review contradicting the recital occurring in paragraph 4 of the order dated 02.01.2020. To the contrary the order dated 02.01.2020 is sought to be reviewed with reference to such material which is not part of the record and on the premise that there can be an another view of the matter.
16. In view of the discussions made above, it is explicitly clear that none of the grounds raised by the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of State in support of the present application for review are cogent enough to lead to the conclusion that there exists an error apparent on the face of record. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Apex Court in Arun Dev Upadhyaya Vs. Integrated Sales Service Limited and Another, (2023) 8 SCC 11, the review petition does not warrant any interference by us.
17. Primarily by means of the instant review application, the review petitioners are seeking review of an order dated 02.01.2020 passed by this Court on the ground that an another view of the matter is possible. We fail to understand as to how the State Government has taken a decision to file a review petition when admittedly in the enquiry proceedings conducted by the State Government regarding the period of absence of opposite party/respondent-1, no evidence was adduced on behalf of State to establish the fact that respondent-1 Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta was engaged in private practice. Moreover, the State Government has itself passed an order dated 21.05.2005 whereby senior grade of pay and promotional pay scale was granted to opposite party/respondent-1 Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta
18. The order dated 21.05.2005 is based on the fact that during the period of absence opposite party/respondent-1 Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta, shall be treated to be on duty. This order dated 21.05.2005, passed by the State Government stands intact even on date. The State Government wants this Court to go behind the order dated 21.05.2005 and hold that since respondent no.2 Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta did not work in the period of absence, therefore, on the principle of No-Work No-pay, she is not entitled to salary for the said period.
19. Admittedly the order dated 21.05.2005 was not the subject matter/scope of the claim petition filed by opposite party/respondent-1 Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta. As such, the order dated 02.01.2020 passed by this Court is being sought to be reviewed bereft of the order dated 21.05.2005, which is otherwise not permissible. No direction was issued by any Court/Tribunal to the State Government prior to the order dated 21.5.2005 itself that opposite party/respondent-1 Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta be treated to be in service during the period of her absence from duty. Moreover, the State Government has itself neither recalled /reviewed its earlier order dated 21.05.2005 on the grounds raised in the present review application.
20. We are therefore, constrained to hold that the present review application has been filed in the most irresponsible manner. Since there is no error much less an error apparent on the face of the record, coupled with the fact that the State Government has taken contradictory stand as noted herein above, the review petition is therefore, misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
21. We, therefore, dismiss the review petition.
22. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
(Rajeev Misra,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) October 10, 2025 YK