Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Pradeep K Moon vs Dattopant Thengadi National Board For ... on 12 August, 2024
1 OA No.479/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.479/2024
Date of Decision: 12th August, 2024
CORAM: Shri Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A)
Shri Pradeep K. Moon
Age 60 years, Retd. as Regional Director,
(Under Suspension), DTNBWED,
Mumbai, Residing at : Brahmand,
Phase-V, Bldg.5/201, Off Ghodbunder
Road, Thane (W) - 400 607.
Mob No.9869674425
Email:[email protected] ... Applicant
( By Advocate Shri Vicky Nagrani)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through
The Secretary,
Ministry of Labour & Employment,
Shram Shakti Bhavan,
Rafi Marg, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Director General,
Dattopant Thengadi National Board,
For Workers Education &
Development, 2nd Floor, Employment
Exchange Bldg., Pusa Complex,
Pusa Road, Near ITI,
New Delhi - 110 012.
3. The Chairman,
Dattopant Thengadi National Board
For Workers Education &
2 OA No.479/2024
Development, 2nd Floor, Employment
Exchange Bldg., Pusa Complex, Pusa
Road, Near ITI,
New Delhi 110 012. ... Respondents
(By Advocate Shri N.K. Rajpurohit)
ORAL ORDER
Per: Shri Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents. With the consent of the parties, this matter has been taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.
2. The case of the applicant, in short, is that the applicant was placed under suspension on 20th July, 2022. The period of suspension was extended by the respondents. This order was challenged before this Tribunal by preferring OA No.574/2023 on the ground that the respondents failed to review the suspension within a period of 90 days. While allowing the OA, this Tribunal has passed the following order:
"10. In view of this, we direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant from 20th October, 2022 by way of interim relief.
11. With these observations, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the Original Application.
12. With these observations, the Original Application stands disposed of. We make it clear that we have not made any observation on the merits of the matter. We do not propose to make any order on regularisation of the suspension period as inquiry is 3 OA No.479/2024 pending. Pending applications, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs."
3. After this order was passed, the applicant filed an application for regular salary for the period of extension of suspension. The respondents refused to pay the salary for the extended period of suspension by invoking Rule 54-B of Fundamental Rules. This order is impugned in this OA.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant points out that Rule 54-B (6) of FR comes into play only for regularisation of period of suspension. He submits that in the case at hand, the applicant is seeking regular salary for the period for which the suspension was revoked. The suspension period had come to an end on 19th October, 2022 and the applicant is seeking salary from 20th October, 2022 as it has been revoked by the order of this Tribunal.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that Rule 54-B(6) of FR states that the suspension period can be regularised only after the conclusion of the inquiry. The inquiry is yet not completed and, therefore, the order passed by the respondents is 4 OA No.479/2024 within the four corners of Rule 54-B(6).
6. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for their respective parties.
7. We deem it appropriate to quote Rule 54-B(1) and (6) for understanding the issue involved in this OA :
F.R.54-B(1) When a Government servant who has been suspended is reinstated or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement (including premature retirement) while under suspension, 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 servant for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement or the date of his retirement (including premature retirement), as the case may be; and
(b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.
(2)....
(3)...
(4)....
(5)....
(6) Where suspension is revoked pending finalisation of the disciplinary or the court proceedings, any order passed under sub-
rule (1) before the conclusion of the proceedings against the Government servant, shall be reviewed on its own motion after the conclusion of the proceedings by the authority mentioned in sub-rule (1) who shall make an order according to the provisions of sub-rule(3) or sub-rule (5) as the case may be.
Rule 54-B(1) states that a Government servant, when he is placed under suspension, is reinstated, the authority competent to order reinstatement shall 5 OA No.479/2024 consider and make a specific order regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement or the date of his retirement and whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. Rule 54-B(6) states that the suspension shall be reviewed on its own motion by the competent authority after the conclusion of the proceedings by the authority mentioned in sub-rule (1), who shall make an order, according to the provisions of sub-rule (3) or sub-rule(5) as the case may be. Rule 54-B speaks of the regularisation of period of suspension only after the conclusion of departmental inquiry. It does not deal with the period of suspension which has been revoked.
8. In the case at hand, the applicant is not claiming the salary for the period, for which, he was placed under suspension. Admittedly, the applicant was placed under suspension for a period of initial 90 days. Thereafter, suspension was extended. This extension of suspension was subsequently revoked by the order of this Tribunal as the suspension was not 6 OA No.479/2024 reviewed within a period of 90 days. Therefore, the applicant is legally entitled to receive regular salary from the date of revocation of suspension i.e. 20th October, 2022 till the date of retirement i.e. 31st August, 2023. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to regular salary for the period from 20th October, 2022 to 31st August, 2023. The respondents committed a gross error in refusing to pay the salary for the period of suspension which has been revoked to the applicant.
9. In this view of the matter, the order of the respondents cannot be sustained. Hence, we deem it appropriate to allow the OA set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to pay the salary to the applicant for the period from 20th October, 2022 to 31st August, 2023 with interest @6% p.a. within a period of eight weeks from today.
10. With these directions, the Original Application stands disposed of. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No costs.
(Shri Krishna) (Justice M.G. Sewlikar) Member (A) Member (J) ma.