Punjab-Haryana High Court
Constable Major Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 19 September, 2022
Author: Jaishree Thakur
Bench: Jaishree Thakur
CWP No. 1756 of 2019 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 1756 of 2019 (O&M)
Reserved on September 1, 2022
Date of Pronouncement: September 19, 2022
Constable Major Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present:- Mr. Dheeraj Chawla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. APS Tung, DAG, Punjab.
JAISHREE THAKUR, J.
1. The petitioner herein by way of instant writ petition seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 31.8.2017 (Annexure P/3) and subsequent order dated 19.9.2017(Annexure P/4) passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the post dismissal period from 31.12.1992 to 13.3.2017 has been treated as 'No Work No Pay' period, with a further prayer to set aside the order dated 21.9.2018 (Annexure P/6)) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against both the orders has been rejected.
2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable on 26.5.1990 on permanent basis and was allotted No. 2729-TT. It is averred that he was blessed with a son, who fell ill at the time of his birth and therefore, he had to suddenly go to his home to attend his ailing son and accordingly he informed his superiors 1 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:39 ::: CWP No. 1756 of 2019 2 in this regard. Unfortunately his son did not survive. However, to his utter surprise, his leave was not sanctioned and he was treated as absent from duty from 26.9.1992 to 16.10.1992 (20 days), 25.10.1992 to 28.10.1992 (3 days), 9.11.1992 to 16.11.1992 (7 days) and 21.11.1992 to 28.11.1992 (7 days), vide order Book No. 1123/92 and while invoking Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, respondent No.3, dismissed him from service without holding any inquiry, vide order dated 31.12.1992. The main basis for dismissal from service was that the petitioner had close links with extremists and he was helping them by providing information of the police department. Aggrieved against the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 6406 of 1994 in this Court, which was allowed on 16.12.2016. However, the respondents were given liberty to hold a departmental inquiry against the petitioner by affording him reasonable opportunity of being heard.
In compliance with the order dated 16.12.2016, the petitioner was reinstated on 13.3.2017, subject to outcome of the fresh departmental inquiry. During the regular departmental inquiry, the charges of having links of the petitioner with the terrorists and leakage of information was not proved but the absence from duty from 21.11.1992 to 28.11.1992 was proved and as such the respondent No.3, passed the impugned order dated 31.8.2017 (Annexure /3). Relevant portion of the said order reads as under:-
"One (1) year of approved service be forfeited permanently for pay/promotion and effect of which will be on his future pay fixation/promotion. His absence from duty w.e.f. 21.11.1992 to 28.11.1992 in total 7 days is ordered to be treated as "No 2 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 ::: CWP No. 1756 of 2019 3 Work No Pay" and the period after his dismissal is also ordered to be treated as "No Work No Pay" for the reason that he has not rendered any Government Duty during this span of time.
Apart from that, as per his record, his absence from duty period prior to dismissal i.e. 26.9.1992 to 16.10.1992 (20 days), 25.10.1992 to 28.10.1992 (3 days) vide order book No. 1123/92 and 09.11.1992 to 16.11.1992 (7 days), has already been treated as 'No Work No Pay'."
3. Apart from the above period of absence for which the petitioner was penalized by treating the same as 'No Work No Pay' period, respondent No.3, vide order dated 19.9.2017 (Annexure P/4), ordered that the period post dismissal i.e. from 31.12.1992 till 13.3.2017 (when he was reinstated), total 24 years 2 month and 14 days, be treated as 'No Work No Pay' on the ground that the petitioner had not rendered any government duty and re- fixed his pay accordingly.
Aggrieved against the orders dated 31.8.2017 and 19.9.2017, the petitioner filed an appeal/supplementary appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar, but the same was rejected, vide order dated 21.9.2018. Hence the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein would vehemently argue that the impugned orders dated 31.8.2017 and 19.9.2017 are absolutely illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that once the dismissal order had been quashed by this Court, then the question of treating the post dismissal period from 31.12.1992 till 13.3.2017 as 'No Work No Pay' period on the ground that the petitioner did 3 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 ::: CWP No. 1756 of 2019 4 not render any government duty, does not arise and the same is arbitrary and cannot be sustained. Learned counsel would rely on Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I, Part I, Chapter VII to contend that once a government employee who has been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or suspended, is reinstated upon having been fully exonerated, then he shall be given full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled to had he not been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or suspended, as the case may be. It is further submitted that by the impugned orders, the petitioner has been made to suffer double jeopardy because on the one hand his one year of approved service has been ordered to be forfeited permanently for pay and promotion while treating the absence period as 'No Work No Pay' period and still further the post dismissal period has been ordered to be treated as 'No Work No Pay' period. It is further submitted that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the alleged wrong committed by him. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel would rely on the judgments in Housing Board, Haryana Versus Sh. S.B. Kumar, Asstt. Engineer and another 2012 (1) S.C.T. 613, M.P. Jindal Versus State Bank of Patiala and Ors. 2013 (2) SLR 251, Manjit Kumar @ Goldi Versus State of Punjab and others 2017 (4) PLR 110, Satyapal @ Satpal Versus State of Haryana and others 2018 (3) S.C.T. 109.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents--Sate would submit that the petitioner remained on leave without prior sanction of the competent authority. It is submitted that absence without permission is a 4 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 ::: CWP No. 1756 of 2019 5 gravest misconduct in the disciplined force. During the departmental inquiry, the petitioner could not justify his absence from duty and in case the petitioner had any domestic problem, then he should have got his leave sanctioned from the competent authority, but he failed to do so. Therefore, no interference is called for in the instant writ petition.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper book as well as the law cited.
7. Primarily, the petitioner has raised three-fold arguments. Firstly, that once the punishing authority, after holding a departmental inquiry, has imposed the punishment of forfeiture of one year approved service permanently for pay/promotion, then his absent period from 21.11.1992 to 28.11.1992 and the period post dismissal i.e. 31.12.1992 to 13.03.2017 cannot be treated as 'No Work No Pay' period; secondly Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I, Part I, Chapter VII provides that once a government employee who has been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or suspended, is reinstated upon having been fully exonerated, then he shall be given full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled to, had he not been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or suspended, as the case may be and; thirdly, that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the alleged wrong committed by him.
In view of the submissions made by both the parties, the sole question that falls for consideration before this Court is, whether the petitioner could be denied his full pay and allowances for the period in 5 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 ::: CWP No. 1756 of 2019 6 question i.e. from the date (31.12.1992) of dismissal till the date (13.3.2017) of his re-instatement in service, by treating the said period as 'No Work No Pay' period?
8. In order to decide the question so framed, at the first instance, it has to be decided whether the petitioner could be held responsible for not performing the duties during the period wages have been denied to him by treating the absent period as 'No work No Pay' period, or what were circumstances which led to his absence from duty during the period in question or the fault, if any, which is attributable to the petitioner for not attending his duties.
9. Admittedly, after quashing of the dismissal order of the petitioner by this Court in writ petition, a regular departmental inquiry was held against him, in which it was held that the charges of his links with terrorists and leakage of information to the terrorists was not proved but his absence from duty at the Police Station Vairowal w.e.f. 21.11.1992 to 28.11.1992 was proved. Thereafter, a show cause notice was served to the petitioner along with the inquiry report to which he submitted a reply. After considering the inquiry report and the reply of the petitioner, the punishing authority, vide order dated 31.8.2017, ordered forfeiture of one year approved service permanently for pay/promotion, effect of which will be on his future pay fixation/promotion. His period of absence from duty w.e.f. 21.11.1992 to 28.11.1992 (total 7 days) was ordered to be treated as 'No Work No Pay' period and the period after his dismissal was also ordered to be treated as 'No Work No Pay' for the reason that he had not rendered any 6 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 ::: CWP No. 1756 of 2019 7 government duty during this span of time. The concluding paragraph of the impugned order dated 31.8.2017 reads as under:-
"After that, the delinquent employee appeared in person in my office and repeated his stand put forth in his reply to the Show Cause Notice. I do not accept his stand as such confirm the proposed punishment already mentioned in Show Cause Notice. I hereby order to that one (1) year of approved service be forfeited permanently for pay/promotion and effect of which will be on his future pay fixation/promotion. His absence from duty w.e.f. 21.11.1992 to 28.11.1992 in total 7 days is ordered to be treated as 'No Work No Pay' and the period after his dismissal is also ordered to be treated as "No Work No Pay"
for the reason that he has not rendered any government duty during this span of time.
Apart from that, as per his record, his absence from duty period prior to dismissal i.e. 26.9.1992 to 16.10.1992 (20 days), 25.10.1992 to 28.10.1992 (3 days) vide order book no. 1123/92 and 09.11.1992 to 16.11.1992 (7 days), has already been treated as "No Work No Pay".
As already noticed, the petitioner filed an appeal/supplementary appeal against the orders dated 31.8.2017 and 19.9.2017 before the Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar, who while rejecting the same observed as under:-
"6. After carefully going through the appeal/supplementary appeal, comments thereon offered by SSP/Tarn Taran, examining the departmental enquiry file, punishment order, pay fixation order and the entire relevant record, the appellant Constable Major Singh No. 2729/TTN (Now 1020/TTN), were also called to office for personnel hearing. During personnel hearing, he reiterated the submissions made in his 7 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 ::: CWP No. 1756 of 2019 8 appeal/supplementary appeal.
7. Upon hearing the appellant personally and on examination of the record, it has been found that the submissions made by the appellant in his appeal/supplementary appeal are not reasonable/acceptable, since he was awarded punishment of dismissal from service by the punishing authority (the then SSP/Tarn Taran), in view of his gravest act of misconduct/activities, pre-judicial to the efficient functioning of the police force, during the year 1992. The then misconduct of the appellant further led to protracted litigation, almost for a long period of 23 years as well as wastage of various resources of the police department. In compliance with the orders dated 16.12.2016 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CWP No. 6406/1994, the appellant has been reinstated in service by the punishing authority (SSP/Tarn Taran) vide his office order dated 10567-80/B dated 10.3.2017. On the basis of allegations of willful absence for 07 days w.e.f. 21.11.1992 to 28.11.1992 while posted at PS Verowal, District Tarn Taran, which were proved during the departmental proceedings, the appellant has been awarded punishment of forfeiture of one year approved service towards annual increment with permanent effect by the punishing authority vide order No. 2347-51/PA dated 31.08.2017. Pay of the appellant has been fixed by SSP/Tarn Taran vide order No. 36933/B/CRC dated 19.09.2017, by depriving him of the annual increments for the year 1993 to 2016, since the appellant had not discharged any duties and had done no work during the relevant period, being out of service."
From the reading of the above re-produced impugned orders, it is abundantly clear that the principle of 'No Work No Pay' has been applied 8 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 ::: CWP No. 1756 of 2019 9 only for the reason that the petitioner did not render any government duty during the period in question. The appellate authority also took the view that the misconduct of the petitioner led to protracted litigation almost for a long period of 23 years as well as wastage of various resources of the police department. So the question that arises is, whether the long period of 23 years is attributable to the petitioner? After dismissal of the petitioner from service on 31.12.1992, he filed CWP No. 6406 of 1994 in this Court, which was allowed on 16.12.2016 and his dismissal order was quashed, albeit giving liberty to the respondents to hold a departmental inquiry against the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated on 13.3.2017, subject to the outcome of a fresh departmental inquiry. From the facts stated above, it is apparent that the petitioner has been continuously pursuing the legal remedy available to him in law and there has been no delay on his part. Therefore, it cannot be held that the petitioner ever refused to perform his duties. The reasoning given by the appellate authority that misconduct of the appellant further led to protracted litigation, almost for a long period of 23 years as well as wastage of various resources of the police department, is strange enough, as if all the faults lie with the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner had been vigilant about his right and he had been pursuing his legal remedy consistently. In fact, in the opinion of the Court if the concerned authority has been circumspect/careful while issuing dismissal order at the first instance, the entire litigation would not have followed. Thus, the petitioner can not be the cause of protracted litigation.
10. At this stage, it will be appropriate to advert to Rule 7.3 of the 9 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 ::: CWP No. 1756 of 2019 10 Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I, Part I, Chapter VII, which reads as under:
"7.3. (1) When a Government employee, who has been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired, is reinstated as a result of appeal, revision or review, or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement on superannuation while under suspension or not, the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order-
(a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government employee for the period of his absence from duty including the period of suspension, preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be; and (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.
(2) Where the authority competent to order re- instatement is of opinion that the Government employee, who had been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired, has been fully exonerated, the Government employee shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (6), be paid his full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended, prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be:
Provided that where such authority is of opinion that the termination of the proceedings instituted against the Government employee had been delayed due to reasons directly attributable to the Government employee it may, after giving him an opportunity to make representation and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him, direct, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the Government employee shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (7), be
10 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 ::: CWP No. 1756 of 2019 11 paid for the period of such delay only such amount (not being the whole) of pay and allowances, as it may determine. (3) In a case falling under sub-rule (2), the period of absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. (4) In cases other than those covered by sub-rule (2) including cases where the order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service is set aside by the authority exercising powers of appeal, revision or review solely on the ground of noncompliance with the requirements of clause (2) of article 311 of the Constitution and no further inquiry is proposed to be held, the Government employee shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rules (6) and (7), be paid such amount (not being the whole) of pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, as the competent authority may determine, after giving notice to the government employee of the quantum proposed and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him in that connection within such period as may be specified in the notice.
Provided that any payment under this sub-rule to a Government employee other than a Government employee who is governed by the provisions of the payment of Wages Act, 1936 (Act 4 of 1936) shall be restricted to a period of three years immediately preceding the date on which order for re- instatement of such Government employee are passed by the authority exercising the powers of appeal, revision or review, or immediately preceding the date of retirement on superannuation of such Government employee, as the case 11 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 ::: CWP No. 1756 of 2019 12 may be.
xxxx xxxx xxxx..."
A bare reading of the provision would make it clear that once a Government employee who has been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or suspended, is re-instated upon having been fully exonerated, then he shall be given full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled to had he not been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or suspended as the case may be.
11. In the facts of the present case, once the order of dismissal was quashed by this Court and the petitioner was reinstated in service, there is no justification or valid reasoning to deny him the service benefits for the period the petitioner remained out of service, by applying the principle of 'No Work No Pay', particularly when it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner ever refused to perform his duty.
12. Now coming to the legal position, insofar as application of the principle of 'No Work No Pay' is concerned, this Court in CWP-17952 of 2012 tilted as 'Kailash Chander Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and another', decided on 13.10.2014 held that where the departmental proceedings were dropped by recording the fact that the charges were not proved, the denial of the consequential benefits of actual arrears of the salary for the period the person remained out on the basis of 'no work no pay' is arbitrary and cannot be sustained. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment, wherein, the law on the subject has been noticed while giving finding, are as under: -
12 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 ::: CWP No. 1756 of 2019 13 "7. The applicability of the rule of 'no work no pay' in a situation where departmental proceedings had been initiated against an employee, sealed cover procedure having been resorted to and such employee after exoneration having been promoted came up for consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India v. K.V.Jankiraman, 1991(3) SCT 317 and it was held as under:
"The normal rule of "no work no pay" is not applicable to cases such as the present one where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. This is not a case where the employee remains away from work for his own reasons, although the work is offered to him."
It was further held that:
".........We are, therefore, broadly in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal that when an employee is completely exonerated meaning thereby that he is not found blameworthy in the least and is not visited with the penalty even of censure, he has to be given the benefit of the salary of the higher post along with the other benefits from the date on which he would have normally been promoted but for the disciplinary/criminal proceedings."
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala and others Vs. E.K.Bhaskaran Pillai, (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 524 has held that principle of 'no work no pay' cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb and where Administration has wrongly denied his due, he should be given full benefits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in E.K.Bhaskaran Pillai's case (supra) has laid down as under:-
"So far as the situation with regard to monetary benefits with retrospective promotion is concerned, that depends upon case to case. There are various facets which have 13 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 ::: CWP No. 1756 of 2019 14 to be considered. Sometimes in a case of departmental enquiry or in criminal case it depends on the authorities to grant full back wages or 50 per cent of back wages looking to the nature of delinquency involved in the matter or in criminal cases where the incumbent has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt or full acquittal. Sometimes in the matter when the person is superseded and he has challenged the same before court or tribunal and he succeeds in that and direction is given for reconsideration of his case from the date persons junior to him were appointed, in that case the court may grant sometimes full benefits with retrospective effect and sometimes it may not. Particularly when the administration has wrongly denied his due then in that case he should be given full benefits including monetary benefit subject to there being any change in law or some other supervening factors. However, it is very difficult to set down any hard-and-fast rule. The principle "no work no pay" cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb. There are exceptions where courts have granted monetary benefits also."
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C.Muddaiah reported as 2007(4) SCT 452 observed as under:
"The matter can be looked at from another angle also. It is true that while granting a relief in favour of a party, the Court must consider the relevant provisions of law and issue appropriate directions keeping in view such provisions. There may, however, be cases where on the facts and in the circumstances, the Court may issue necessary directions in the larger interest of justice keeping in view the principles of justice, equity and good 14 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 ::: CWP No. 1756 of 2019 15 conscience. Take a case, where ex facie injustice has been meted out to an employee. In spite of the fact that he is entitled to certain benefits, they had not been given to him. His representations have been illegally and unjustifiably turned down. He finally approaches a Court of Law. The Court is convinced that gross injustice has been done to him and he was wrongfully, unfairly and with oblique motive deprived of those benefits. The Court, in the circumstances, directs the Authority to extend all benefits which he would have obtained had he not been illegally deprived of them. Is it open to the Authorities in such case to urge that as he has not worked (but held to be illegally deprived), he would not be granted the benefits? Upholding of such plea would amount to allowing a party to take undue advantage of his own wrong. It would perpetrate injustice rather than doing justice to the person wronged. We are conscious and mindful that even in absence of statutory provision, normal rule is 'no work no pay'. In appropriate cases, however, a Court of Law may, nay must, take into account all the facts in their entirety and pass an appropriate order in consonance with law. The Court, in a given case, may hold that the person was willing to work but was illegally and unlawfully not allowed to do so. The Court may, in the circumstances, direct the Authority to grant him all benefits considering 'as if he had worked'. It, therefore, cannot be contended as an absolute proposition of law that no direction of payment of consequential benefits can be granted by a Court of Law and if such directions are issued by a Court, the Authority can ignore them even if they had been finally confirmed by the Apex 15 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 ::: CWP No. 1756 of 2019 16 Court of the country (as has been done in the present case). The bald contention of the appellant - Board, therefore, has no substance and must be rejected."
10. Adverting back to the facts of the present case, it has gone uncontroverted that departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by issuance of a charge sheet in the year 1997. For no fault of the employee i.e. the present petitioner, such proceedings were kept pending and not finalized for a period of 13 long years. Finally, vide order dated 24.6.2010, Annexure P3, a categoric finding came to be recorded that the charge levelled against him is not established and as such, the disciplinary case was dropped. Relevant finding recorded in the order dated 24.6.2010 passed by the General Manager, Irrigation Department, Haryana reads in the following terms:
"........On careful examination of the record, it does not establish at this stage that there was any back date entry any where in the Measurement Book. Therefore, the explanation given by the Sub Divisional Clerk seems to be tenable. This case was also considered at the Government level and on consideration Government decided to drop the disciplinary cases against the officers involved in the case. Record also reveals that the Junior Engineer who was also involved in this matter could not be charge sheeted because of his death. In such circumstances, when the officers who actually carried out the work and made entries and with whom the onus of the charges lies, have been exonerated after a thorough enquiry it will not be justifiable to punish a junior level staffer who just checked the entry arithmetically.
Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of this case the defence stated by the Sub Divisional Clerk 16 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 ::: CWP No. 1756 of 2019 17 during the course of hearing, it is concluded that the charge against him is not established. It is therefore, decided to drop the disciplinary case against Shri Kailash Chander, Sub Divisional Clerk. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
( Tilak Raj )
General Manager,Irrigation
Department, Haryana,
Panchkula."
11. Under such circumstances and by applying the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. OP Gupta, State of Kerala and others v. E.K.Bhaskaran Pillai and The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C.Muddaiah (supra), the petitioner cannot be denied the consequential benefit of actual arrears/salary for the period in question. It is not the case where the petitioner had declined to work on the promoted post, rather he was denied the opportunity to occupy the promotional posts on account of pendency of departmental proceedings and which were also dragged and delayed for no fault of his. The principle of 'no work no pay' would have no applicability in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case."
13. From the facts and the legal position discussed above, it is clear that the petitioner had been consistently pursuing his legal remedy; he never refused to perform his duties and thus there is no fault attributable to the petitioner for the protracted litigation. He was well within his right to pursue his legal remedy. Therefore, the action on the part of the respondents in declining the service benefits including the pay and allowances for the period the petitioner remained out of service, is not justifiable and consequently the instant writ petition is allowed, the 17 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 ::: CWP No. 1756 of 2019 18 impugned orders dated 31.8.2017 (Annexure P-3), 19.9.2017 (Annexure P/4) and 21.9.2018 (Annexure P/6) are set aside only to the extent of treating the post dismissal period from 31.12.1992 to 13.3.2017 of the petitioner as 'No work No Pay' period and subsequent denial of pay and allowances for the said period. It is directed that the petitioner will be treated in service uninterruptedly during the said period for all intents and purposes and the period for which he remained out of service on account of dismissal will be treated as a duty period for all intents and purposes including for the grant of increments and fixation of pay.
14. Let the said exercise be done by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the arrears for which the petitioner is found entitled for be released to him within a period next three months, failing which such sum shall carry an interest of 6% per annum.
September 19, 2022 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
prem JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
18 of 18
::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2022 03:38:40 :::