Orissa High Court
Sandeep Yadav @ Yadav Sandeep vs Union Of India Through The on 7 April, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.37720 of 2023
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950.
--------------
Sandeep Yadav @ Yadav Sandeep .... Petitioner
Ganesh
-versus-
1. 1. Union of India through the
Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance, New Delhi
2. 2. The Chairperson, Central Board
of Excise and Customs (CBEC),
Department of Revenue, Ministry
of Finance, New Delhi .... Opposite Parties
Advocates who appeared in this case
For Petitioner - M/s. T.R. Mohanty, P. Mohanty, S.
Punnia & M. Jain, Advocates
For Opp. Parties - Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI
along with Mr. D.R. Bhokta, CGC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing and Judgment: 07.04.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER KRISHNA S. DIXIT,J.
Petitioner a Central Government employee of Customs Department, is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing Cuttack Central Administrative Tribunal's order dated 18.08.2023, whereby his Page 1 of 5 O.A. No.381 of 2021 essentially seeking full pay and emoluments for the suspension period, between 30.04.2018 and 23.07.2019, has been negatived.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner pressing into service a Delhi High Court decision in Tushar Ranjan Mohanty v. Union of India, 2025:DHC:6756-DB, more particularly Paragraphs-19, 20 & 23 submits that where the suspension is revoked, without saying anything about the entitlement of the employee for the pay and allowances during the suspension period, the same needs to be granted to him. In support of his stand, he also presses into service the provisions of F.R. 54-B Sub-Rule (1) & (6).
3. Learned DSGI-Mr. Parhi ably assisted by learned CGC-Mr. Bhokta vehemently resists the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order of the Tribunal and the reasons on which it has been structured. He also placed reliance on a decision of Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.6645 of 2023 between Prashant Kumar Sinha v. Union of India disposed off on 26.05.2023 in support of his contention on which the Tribunal's order is constructed.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:
Page 2 of 5
4.1. The foundational fact that, the deemed suspension of Petitioner vide order dated 30.04.2018 under Rule 10(2)(a) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 because of his arrest & detention beyond 48 hours, is not in dispute. So also the suspension Revocation order dated 18.06.2021 with retrospective effect from 24.07.2019 is not in dispute. Learned counsel for the Petitioner is right in placing reliance on the decision of Delhi High Court in Tushar Ranjan Mohanty supra to the effect that unless the Revocation order specifically says as to what emolument should be paid or denied to the employee for the suspension period, his salary based on the admissible pay-scale and allowances cannot be diminished. The salary that accrues to an employee virtually constitutes a property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and that its denial would amount to begar, proscribed under Article 23 of the Constitution vide State of Gujarat v.
Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, AIR 1998 SC 3164. 4.2. The Delhi High Court in Tushar Ranjan Mohanty supra having considered the text & context of F.R. 54-B(1) at paragraph-23 has observed as under:
"23. From the above, it is evident that not passing an order under F.R.54-B(1) immediately or within a reasonable time of passing of an order revoking the suspension, denudes the Competent Authority of the power to pass such an order thereafter. The effect thereof is that the employee/officer is Page 3 of 5 treated as on duty during the period of his initial suspension as well and, therefore, is entitled to full pay and allowances."
The above observation is made keeping in view the imprimatur granted by the Apex Court in SLP (C) No.6393 of 2012 disposed off on 06.10.2015 between Vijay Kumar Aggarwal v. Union of India which affirmed the decision of Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.916 of 2007 decided on 14.12.2010. A decision of a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Shiv Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2014 Karnataka 73 following M/s. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 2321 has observed that when a piece of Central Law is interpreted by one High Court, ordinarily the other High Courts have to follow the same, subject to all just exceptions. 4.3. The reliance of learned DSGI on another decision of Delhi High Court in Prashant Kumar Sinha supra would not come to his rescue since the said decision nowhere refers to any rule much less F.R. 54- B(1). No discernible principle arises from the brief facts stated in the judgment which has three short paragraphs, the last being a one liner "The petition is dismissed". It hardly needs to be stated that the ratio of a decision has to be churned out by applying conventional doctrines such as Prof. Wambaugh's Inversion Test or Prof. Upendra Baxi's Test.
Page 4 of 5
4.4. All of the above has not animated the impugned order, when it ought to have. The Tribunal having not considered the matter in the right perspective, a great prejudice is caused to the employee, which needs to be set at naught, in this appeal.
In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order of the Tribunal; Petitioner's O.A. No.381 of 2021 having been favoured, a Writ of Mandamus issues to pay to him all the emoluments minus the subsistence allowance already drawn during the suspension period between 30.04.2018 and 23.07.2019. Further the suspension period shall be treated as duty period.
The above directions shall be accomplished within an outer limit of three (3) months and if delay is brooked, the differential of payables would carry a monthly interest at the rate of 1% for the first month and 2% for the months next following, which may be recovered from the erring Officials of the Department.
Cost made easy.
Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Signature The 07 day Not h of April, Verified 2026/Anisha Digitally Signed Page 5 of 5 Signed by: ANISHA NANDA Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 09-Apr-2026 10:18:56