S.C. Gupta vs Jawahar Lal Nehru University
1999 Latest Caselaw 401 Del

JUDGMENT

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

1. The petitioner, who was working as Assistant, was promoted as Section Officer in 1981. A disciplinary action was taken against him and ultimately the punishment imposed was reduced to the penalty of reduction from his substantive post of Senior Assistant, where he was working on ad hoc basis. The ultimate order dated 26.11.1986 reads asunderi-

"WHEREAS the penalty of compulsory retirement from the University service was imposed on Shri S.C.Gupta with effect from 13th November, 1987 (Afternoon) vide order dated 19th November, 1987.

AND WHEREAS on having considered the fresh representation dated 24.11.1987 of Shri S.C.Gupta pleading for leniency in punishment on ac count of his age and his unfulfilled commitments towards his family and also the facts that he is in the age group where he may not be able to get employment anywhere/elsewhere, the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on Shri S.C. Gupta vide aforesaid order has been reviewed;

NOW, THEREFORE, IN suspension of the aforesaid Order dated 19th November, 1987, I hereby -

(a) revoke the Order dated 21st March, 1986, by which Shri Gupta was placed under suspension, from the date he resumes his duties and direct him to report for duty to the Deputy Registrar (Admn.)

(b) impose on Shri Gupta the penalty of reduction from his substantive post of Senior Assistant (ad hoc) post of Section Officer to the lower post of Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 (revised at a Rs. 1500/- basic pay of date Shri Gupta resumed his duties.

(c) debar Shri Gupta for promotion for a period of 5 years at the end of which he may be considered for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant as per University rules.

(d) order that the period of his suspension shall not be treated as period spent on duty and consequently the period of his suspension shall not qualify for the purpose of increments and retirement benefits; and that the subsistence allowance paid to him during the suspension period shall remain unchanged."

This was challenged by the petitioner unsuccessfully.

2. The petitioner in the writ petition prays for the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:-

(a) allow the writ petition of the petitioner;

(b) issue a writ directing the respondent University to give the benefit of pay fixation as per pay commission report 1986 protecting his pay in the post of Assistant along with interest."

3. The provocation for the same is the order dated 10.10.1984 issued by the University informing the petitioner that his pay as Senior Assistant/Section Officer was fixed at Rs. 1820/- p.m. in the revised scale of Rs. 1640-2900.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a two-fold submission. First is that even though in the order imposing punishment dated 26.11.1987 specific reference is made that his pay is fixed at Rs. 1,500/- on the scale of Rs. 1200-2040, and in view of the revision he would be entitled to the pay to be fixed on scale of Rs. 1820/- and the arrears should be paid to him. The petitioner retired on September, 1994.

5. The second limb of the submission by the learned counsel for the petitioner was, assuming that the stand of the respondent University is correct on the first point, in any event, the petitioner has worked as Senior Assistant/Section Officer(ad hoc) from 1981 to 1987 when the scale of pay had been revised at Rs. 1820 p.m. w.e.f.1.1.86 and he should have been paid the salary for that part of the period from 1.1.86 till 26.11.1987.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent, University, submitted that the petitioner worked as Senior Assistant/Section Officer only till 21.3.1986 on which date he was suspended and though the final orde'r was passed on the 26th of November, 1987, the petitioner would be entitled to salary on the scale 1820/- only from 1.1.86 to 21.3.1986.

7. The petitioner was on ad hoc promotion post from 1981 to 1987. During the period of suspension, the petitioner must have received the subsistence allowance but his status as Senior Assistant/Section Officer remained till 26.11.1987. Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to payment on the sale of Rs. 1820/- from 1.1.1986 up to 26.11.1987 after deducting the amounts paid towards subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. If this amount is not paid, the respondent shall calculate the same and pay the amount to the petitioner on or before the 31st of August, 1999.

8. The writ petition is ordered only to the above extent.

9. There shall be no order as to costs.