Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati
Shri Ram Krishna Dubey vs Home Affairs on 16 May, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUWAHATI BENCH
Original Application No. 40/253/2024
Reserved on: 26.03.2026
Date of Pronouncement: 16.05.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SANJIV KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Between
1. Shri Ram Krishna Dubey,
S/o Keshab Prasad Dubey,
Constable (MT), North Eastern Police Academy,
Umsaw, Umiam - 793123, Meghalaya.
2. Shri Arvind Kumar Pal,
S/o Sri Anirudh Pal,
Constable (GD), North Eastern Police Academy,
Umsaw, Umiam - 793123, Meghalaya.
3. Sri Rinkoo Ram,
S/o Sri Ghisiyawan Sonkar,
Constable(GD), North Eastern Police Academy,
Umsaw, Umiam - 793123, Meghalaya.
.......Applicants
(By Advocates: Mr. M. Chanda, Mrs. U. Dutta,
Ms. S. Choudhury, Ms. S. Goswami)
- Versus -
1. The Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India,
South Block, New Delhi, Pin - 110001.
2. The Director,
North Eastern Police Academy,
MHA, UMSAW, Meghalaya, Pin - 793123.
O.A. No.040/253/2024
SOURABH Digitally
SOURABH
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR
2
3. CMO(NFSG)/Head of Office,
North Eastern Police Academy,
MHA, UMSAW, Meghalaya, Pin - 793123.
.....Respondents
(By Advocates: Sri A. Kundu, Addl. CGSC)
ORDER
PER MR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A):
The instant O.A. has been preferred by the applicants seeking the following relief(s):
"8.1 To direct the respondents to grant the applicants full pay and allowances for the period intervening between their date of termination i.e. 01.11.2017 for the applicant no. 1 and 2 and 07.11.2017 for the applicant no. 3(including the period of suspension w.e.f. 20.02.2017) preceding termination in respect of applicant no. 1) and the date of reinstatement on 04.08.2023, in terms of F.R. 54-A(3), with all consequential benefits including arrear monetary benefits with interest @ 12% p.a. 8.2 Any other relief or reliefs as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, including the cost of the case."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant Nos. 1, 2 & 3 were appointed as Constable(MT), Constable(GD) and Constable(GD) respectively in the Respondent's Department w.e.f. 2013/14. Vide Orders dated 02.11.2017 and 07.11.2017, the applicants were terminated from service under Rule 5(1) of the CCS(Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 on O.A. No.040/253/2024 SOURABH Digitally SOURABH signed by KUMAR KUMAR 3 the wrong pretext that they were still under probation and were temporary employees. Being aggrieved with the impugned orders of termination, the applicants approached this Tribunal through separate O.A. Nos. i.e. 49/2018, 69/2018 and 70/2018 respectively which was allowed by this Tribunal on 13.04.2021 by setting aside the termination orders and reinstating them. The said Order of this Tribunal was also affirmed by the Hon'ble Meghalaya High Court by dismissing the WP(C) Nos. 339/2022, 340/2022 & 338/2022 on 18.04.2023 which were filed by the respondents. Pursuant to the same, the CMO(NFSG)/Head of Office, NEPA issued Orders dated 25.07.2023 individually in respect of the applicants invoking their termination orders and reinstating them in the service as Constable w.e.f. the date of their joining. In terms of the Revocation of Termination cum Reinstatement Order dated 25.07.2023 and the Joining Order dated 05.08.2023, it has been mentioned that the period of absence from duty i.e. w.e.f. 01.11.2017 to 04.08.2023 in respect of Applicant Nos. 1 & 2, from 07.11.2017 to 04.08.2023 in respect of Applicant No. 3 shall be treated as period spent on duty for all purposes as per FR 54-A but it has not been mentioned in the said orders that the said period is to be further treated in terms of FR 54-A(3). It is stated that non-mentioning of the appropriate provision of Sub-Clause (3) of FR 54-A in the Orders dated 25.07.2023 and 05.08.2023 and denying treatment of the said period in terms of FR 54-A(3) O.A. No.040/253/2024 SOURABH Digitally SOURABH signed by KUMAR KUMAR 4 is arbitrary and illegal and speaks of malice and malafide against the applicants.
3. Respondents have filed their written statement, wherein they have averred that they have reinstated the applicant strictly in terms of the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 49/2018, 69/2018 & 70/2018. In those O.A.s, the applicants though prayed for service benefits from 01.11.2017 (Applicant Nos. 1 & 2) and 07.11.2017(Applicant No. 3) till reinstatement on 04.08.2023 but in the earlier round of litigation, this Tribunal declined to grant the same benefit, therefore, the applicants are not covered under FR 54-A(3) and as such, question of granting interest does not arise. Further, as per the respondents, after the termination of applicants from their services, they were not on duty till their reinstatement after Court's order, therefore, no work no pay salary/allowances for the period of absence should not be paid and basing on the same, they were reinstated in service, however, in the present OA, there is no pleading to that effect during the period they were not on duty and were not gainfully employed elsewhere. Hence, the submission made by the applicants are not factually correct nor legally tenable and on this count, the present OA is liable to be dismissed.
4. Applicants have also filed their rejoinder wherein they have pleaded that FR 54-A(3) provides that when dismissal is set aside by the Court on the merits of the case, the period intervening between the date of O.A. No.040/253/2024 SOURABH Digitally SOURABH signed by KUMAR KUMAR 5 dismissal and the date of reinstatement shall be treated as duty for all purposes and he shall be paid the full pay and allowances for the period, to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed. It is not understood as to why the provisions of FR 54 will not be applicable in the present case of the applicant. Besides that there are catena of judgements pronounced by the various Courts wherein it is held that if the termination of an employee is found to be illegal and in violation of principle of natural justice, then reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule. The respondents, in their own Order dated 25.07.2023 which is related to the reinstatement of applicant, has specifically mentioned the provisions of FR 54-A. Therefore, denying the grant of benefit of arrear pay and allowances to the applicants for the intervening period is highly arbitrary and unfair.
5. We have heard the parties and perused the records.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the issue in the present case is no more res integra as the law is well settled that in cases of wrongful termination of service and when the Court comes to the conclusion that the termination was bad in law, reinstatement with continuity of service and grant of back wages is the normal rule. The respondents by mentioning FR 54-A both in the revocation cum reinstatement Order dated 25.07.2023 and the Joining Order dated 05.08.2023 acknowledge that the applicants are entitled to pay and O.A. No.040/253/2024 SOURABH Digitally SOURABH signed by KUMAR KUMAR 6 allowances during the period of termination and reinstatement of the applicant but in a cryptic manner avoids to mention the appropriate provision thereunder i.e. Clause (2) or (3) of FR 54-A. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
(i) United Bank of India -V/s- Biswanath Bhattacharjee decided in Civil Appeal No. 8258 of 2009.
(ii) Deepali Gundu Surwase -V/s- Kranti Junior Adhyapak & Ors. decid ed in Civil Appeal No. 6767 of 2012.
(iii) The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing -V/s- C. Muddaiah decided in Civil Appeal No. 4108 of 2007.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that applicants were reinstated back in service strictly in terms of the Order dated 13.04.2021 passed in O.A. Nos. 49/2018, 69/2018 and 70/2018. In those original applications, the applicants though prayed for service benefits from 01.11.2017(Applicant Nos. 1 & 2) and 07.11.2017(Applicant No. 3) till reinstatement on 04.08.2023 but in the earlier round of litigation, this Tribunal declined to grant the same benefit; therefore, the present applicants are not covered under FR 54 A(3) and as such, question of granting interest does not arise. Further, the applicants never filed any writ petition regarding rejection of their prayer regarding back wages during the period they were terminated from the service and as such, the said prayer for back wages attained finality.
O.A. No.040/253/2024 SOURABH Digitally SOURABH signed by KUMAR KUMAR 7
8. Upon assessing the entire records and submission of both the sides, it transpires that the applicants' are claiming for grant of full pay and allowances for the period intervening between their date of termination i.e. 01.11.2017 for the Applicant Nos. 1 & 2 and 07.11.2017 for the applicant No. 3 (including the period of suspension w.e.f. 21.02.2017 preceding termination in respect of Applicant No. 1) and the date of reinstatement on 04.08.2023 in terms of FR 54-A(3) since their terminations were set aside by this Tribunal on 13.04.2021 in O.A. Nos. 49/2018, 69/2018 and 70/2018 which was subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Meghalaya High Court vide Order dated 18.04.2023 passed in WP(C) Nos. 339/2022, 340/2022 and 338/2022.
9. We find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant regarding placing reliance on the Judgement dated 24.04.2025 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar in LPA No. 228/2023, wherein the Hon'ble High Court had observed at para 13 as follows:
"13. The principle of "no work no pay" can be put into operation when the employee remains out of service because of his own act/omission/fault but when an employee is kept away from the work by any act or omission on the part of the employer, the employee cannot be denied salary on the principle of "no work no pay". In this regard support can be had from the judgements of Supreme Court in the cases titled "Commr., Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah", (2007) 7 SCC 689 (para-34), "J.N. Srivastava vs. Union of India & anr." AIR 1999 SC 1571, and "Union O.A. No.040/253/2024 SOURABH Digitally SOURABH signed by KUMAR KUMAR 8 of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman Etc. Etc." (1991) AIR (SCW) 2276.
14. We have examined the judgement passed by the learned Writ Court and the learned Writ Court has arrived at the conclusion that the respondents were kept away from work by the authorities after accepting their offer of voluntary retirement and, as such, they are entitled to salary for the intervening period. There is no illegality in the judgement passed by the learned writ court."
10. We have also gone through the Judgement dated 12.08.2013 delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak & Ors. arising out of Civil Appeal No. 6767 of 2013, whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court at para 20 has held as follows:
20. The principle laid down in Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v.
Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (supra) was reiterated in P.G.I. of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh v. Raj Kumar (2001) 2 SCC 54. That case makes an interesting reading. The respondent had worked as helper for 11 months and 18 days. The termination of his service was declared by Labour Court, Chandigarh as retrenchment and was invalidated on the ground of non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As a corollary, the Labour Court held that the respondent was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. However, only 60% back wages were awarded. The learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court did not find any error apparent in the award of the Labour Court but ordered payment of full back wages. The two Judge Bench of this Court noted the guiding principle laid down in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited and observed:
"While it is true that in the event of failure in compliance with Section 25-F read with Section 25(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the normal course of events the Tribunal is supposed to award the back wages in its entirety but the discretion is left with the Tribunal in the matter of grant of back wages and it is this discretion, which in Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. case this Court has stated must be exercised in a judicial and judicious manner depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. While, however, recording the guiding principle for the grant of relief of back wages this Court O.A. No.040/253/2024 SOURABH Digitally SOURABH signed by KUMAR KUMAR 9 in Hindustan case, itself reduced the back wages to 75%, the reason being the contextual facts and circumstances of the case under consideration.
The Labour Court being the final court of facts came to a conclusion that payment of 60% wages would comply with the requirement of law. The finding of perversity or being erroneous or not in accordance with law shall have to be recorded with reasons in order to assail the finding of the Tribunal or the Labour Court. It is not for the High Court to go into the factual aspects of the matter and there is an existing limitation on the High Court to that effect. In the event, however the finding of fact is based on any misappreciation of evidence, that would be deemed to be an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. The law is well settled to the effect that finding of the Labour Court cannot be challenged in a proceeding in a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Labour Court was insufficient or inadequate though, however, perversity of the order would warrant intervention of the High Court. The observation, as above, stands well settled since the decision of this Court in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan AIR 1964 SC 477. Payment of back wages having a discretionary element involved in it has to be dealt with, in the facts and circumstances of each case and no straight-jacket formula can be evolved, though, however, there is statutory sanction to direct payment of back wages in its entirety. As regards the decision of this Court in Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. be it noted that though broad guidelines, as regards payment of back wages, have been laid down by this Court but having regard to the peculiar facts of the matter, this Court directed payment of 75% back wages only. The issue as raised in the matter of back wages has been dealt with by the Labour Court in the manner as above having regard to the facts and circumstances of the matter in the issue, upon exercise of its discretion and obviously in a manner which cannot but be judicious in nature. In the event, however, the High Court's interference is sought for, there exists an obligation on the part of the High Court to record in the judgment, the reasoning before however denouncing a judgment of an inferior Tribunal, in the absence of which, the judgment in our view cannot stand the scrutiny of otherwise being reasonable. There ought to be available in the judgment itself a finding about the perversity or the erroneous approach of the Labour Court and it is only upon recording therewith the High Court has the authority to interfere. Unfortunately, the High Court did not feel it expedient to record any reason far less any appreciable reason before denouncing the judgment."
From the above, it is noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has unambiguously stated that payment of back wages having a discretionary O.A. No.040/253/2024 SOURABH Digitally SOURABH signed by KUMAR KUMAR 10 element involved in it has to be dealt with, in the facts and circumstances of each case and no straight-jacket formula can be evolved. Therefore, applying the aforesaid ratio, the applicants are entitled for full pay and allowances as per FR 54-A(3) for the period of absence from duty due to their termination, which was set aside by this Tribunal and subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble Meghalaya High Court. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents also holds ground that applicants could not establish this fact that during the intervening period of absence from duty, they were not gainfully employed elsewhere.
11. After going through the judgements placed by the learned counsel for the parties and considering the factual aspect of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the present applicants are entitled to back wages which would be restricted to 50% of the full pay since they have not worked during the said intervening period. Therefore, we direct the respondents to release back wages to the petitioners to the tune of 50% of the full pay for the period intervening between their date of termination i.e. 01.11.2017 for the Applicant Nos. 1 & 2, and 07.11.2017 for the Applicant No. 3(including the period of suspension w.e.f. 20.02.2017 preceding termination in respect of Applicant No. 1) till their date of reinstatement vide Order dated 04.08.2023. Consequential benefits including financial upgradation, pay-fixation, seniority and increments shall also be granted to the present applicants.
O.A. No.040/253/2024 SOURABH Digitally SOURABH signed by KUMAR KUMAR 11
12. The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
13. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, the instant OA stands disposed of. No costs.
(SANJIV KUMAR) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/SK/
O.A. No.040/253/2024
SOURABH Digitally
SOURABH
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR