Allahabad High Court
Pashupathi Nath Tiwari vs Union Of India Thru. Secy. ... on 28 April, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 927 of 2023
Petitioner :- Pashupathi Nath Tiwari
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs New Delhi And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pratyush Tripathi,Chetan Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Vijay Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Pratyush Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, learned learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed impugning the order dated 08.04.2020 passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, C.R.P.F., District Amethi whereby certain period of absence of the petitioner from duty has been treated to be leave without pay and for half pay.
3. Sri Pratyush Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that so far as period mentioned in sub para (a) and (b) of the impugned order is concerned, he is not challenging the said period, however, in respect of the period from 24.12.2018 to 24.01.2019 i.e. 32 days, which has been sanctioned as the leave with half pay, and the period from 25.01.2019 to 25.04.2019 i.e. 91 days as extraordinary leave are concerned, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that writ court in Writ Petition No.27068(SB) of 2018 vide order dated 19.09.2018 passed the order for taking no coercive action against the petitioner. Said writ petition was finally allowed vide judgment and order dated 17.04.2019 by this Court and the transfer order was set aside.
4. Sri Pratyush Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that after this Court passed the interim order taking no coercive action against the petitioner, the petitioner approached the authority to allot him work, however, no work was allotted to him but he was paid salary. He submits that despite several letters written by the petitioner to allot him work, he was not allowed to perform any duty on the ground that till the final decision of the writ petition, he would not be allowed. He further submits that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for department's own mistake/wrong as once they were paying salary to the petitioner, they should have taken work from him, and if the Department has not taken work, he cannot be punished for sanctioning half salary for the period from 24.12.2018 to 24.01.2019 and sanctioning extraordinary leave for the period of 25.01.2019 to 24.04.2019. He, therefore, submits that impugned order so far as sub para (d) and (e) are concerned, is liable to be quashed.
5. It is also submitted by Sri Pratyush Tripathi that the petitioner should be treated in the Group Strength with effect from 03.08.2018 and not from 26.04.2019 after the said transfer order was passed inasmuch as once transfer order has been quashed, the petitioner should be treated to have remain posted at Amethi till he has been transferred to Patna.
6. Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner never performed any duty. As this Court has passed the order for taking no coercive action, he was paid salary. In the final judgment and order dated 17.04.2019, there is no direction for treating the petitioner in service for all this period. It has been further submitted that the competent authority has been considerate towards the petitioner in regularization despite his absence from service for such a long time. The impugned order is justified and in accordance with law, which is not required to be interfered with.
7. I have considered the submissions. I find substance in the submissions of Sri Pratyush Tripathi that as the earlier order was passed by this Court vide order dated 17.04.2019, the petitioner should be treated to be in Group Strength from the date when he was relieved i.e. 03.08.2018, however, so far as question of treating the petitioner on leave with half pay with effect from 24.12.2018 to 24.01.2019 is concerned, the petitioner should be paid half pay for 32 days. In respect of regularizing his absence from 21.01.2019 to 25.04.2019 as extraordinary leave, this Court finds that since the petitioner has been paid salary for the said period also on the strength of the interim order dated 19.09.2018 passed by this Court, interest of justice would meet if the said period of 91 days should also be treated as leave with half pay.
8. With the aforesaid direction/observation, the present petition stands finally disposed of.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)
Order Date :- 28.4.2023
prateek
