Delhi High Court
Gnct Of Delhi And Ors vs Rohtas Singh on 26 May, 2014
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3420/2014
% Date of decision: 26th May, 2014
GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. V.K. Tandon, Adv.
versus
ROHTAS SINGH ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. T.D. Yadav, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)
CAV No.475/2014
Inasmuch as the respondents are represented before this
court and has been heard, caveat notice shall stand discharged.
W.P.(C) 3420/2014
1. The petitioner assails the order dated 21st February, 2014
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing
O.A.No.3574/2012 directing the petitioner herein to treat the
period between which the respondent herein was dismissed from
service till the date he was reinstated, as period spent on duty.
2. It appears that the present respondent along with his younger
brother Harsarup Singh and Dharambir Singh and other three
WP(C) No.3420/2014 page 1 of 5
persons were charged and subjected to a trial in the case arising out
of FIR No.644/2000 registered by PS Sadar Gurgaon (Haryana)
under Section 302/201/34/ of the IPC. The learned trial court
found them guilty of the charges and convicted and sentenced all of
them by its order dated 30th August, 2006.
3. At the time of conviction, the respondent was posted as
Assistant Sub-Inspector. On his conviction and sentence by the
Criminal Court, the respondent was dismissed from service by the
petitioner vide order dated 22nd December, 2006 under Article
311(2) of the Constitution of India.
4. We are informed that if the respondent had continued in
service he would have retired from service on 31st January, 2008,
when he would have attained the age of superannuation.
5. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioner
along with his co-accused filed Crl.App.No.6351/2006 before the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. By a detailed
judgment dated 20th November, 2008, the Punjab and Haryana
High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondent
herein as well as that of Harsarup Singh and Dharambir Singh.
The respondent consequently made a representation to the
petitioner seeking his reinstatement and grant of consequential
benefits notionally.
6. The dismissal of the representation was unduly delayed
necessitating the filing of O.A.No.598/2011 which was disposed of
with a direction to the present petitioner to pass order on this
WP(C) No.3420/2014 page 2 of 5
representation. It appears that in pursuance thereof, the petitioner
passed the order dated 20th April, 2011 directing as follows:-
"In view of the above the order dated 22.12.2006
regarding dismissal in respect of Ex.SI Rohtash Singh
No.D/1600 (PIS No.28670196) is hereby set aside.
He is hereby notionally reinstated in service from the
date of his dismissal from Delhi Police i.e.
22.12.2006. The intervening period from the date of
his notional reinstatement (i.e., 22.12.2006) to the
date of his attaining the age of superannuation (i.e.
31.01.2008) is decided as Leave of Kind Due.
Further his suspension period from 28.8.2006 to
21.12.2006 is decided as period Spent on Duty."
7. Harsarup Singh and Dharambir Singh were convicted and
sentenced by the very judgment by which the present respondent
had been convicted and sentenced. It was the same judgment of
the Appellate Court which had set aside the conviction and
sentence in respect of all three of them.
8. Harsarup Singh and Dharambir Singh were also working as
Constables with the petitioner. Upon their conviction by the trial
court had been dismissed from service. We are informed that after
the above Appellate Court judgment setting aside the conviction,
the petitioner reinstated Harsarup Singh and Dharambir Singh and
treated the entire period in which they had remained dismissed
from service as having been „spent on duty‟ by them.
9. The petitioner aggrieved by the denial of the same benefits
and the discrimination meted out to him, filed the
O.A.No.3574/2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal
WP(C) No.3420/2014 page 3 of 5
which was accepted and allowed by the petitioner by the judgment
passed on 21st February, 2014.
The learned Tribunal has held that there was no
discrimination between the case of the respondent herein on the
one hand or Harsarup Singh and Dharambir Singh on the other.
10. We may note that Dharambir Singh and the present
respondent attained the age of superannuation before the
respondent passed the order of reinstatement. However, Harsarup
Singh was still having service on the date of his reinstatement.
11. Given the fact that the benefit of treating the period when
Dharambir Singh was out of job as period spent on duty, the
Tribunal has held that no valid reason has been shown to
discriminate and disentitle the respondent herein from the same
relief. In view of the above, the consequential direction has been
issued in the impugned judgment to treat the period from 22nd
December, 2006 (when the respondent was dismissed) to 31 st
January, 2008 (when his reinstatement was directed) as also having
been spent on duty. We have heard learned counsel for the parties
and carefully examined the record.
12. Nothing is pointed out which would unable this court to take
a different view. We find no merit in this writ petition and dismiss
the same.
13. In case the petitioners have not complied with the directions
made by the Tribunal, we extend the period granted by the Tribunal
and direct that the exercise of computation of all consequential
WP(C) No.3420/2014 page 4 of 5
benefits to the respondent herein as well as payment of resultant
arrears shall stand extended by a period of six weeks from today.
14. The order which is passed as well as computation of the
arrears shall be communicated to the respondent at the earliest. It
shall be informed that the payment of the amounts due and payable
is effected positively within a period of six weeks from today.
CM No.7038/2014
In view of the order passed in the writ petition, no orders are
required to be passed in this application.
Dasti to counsel for the parties.
(GITA MITTAL)
JUDGE
(DEEPA SHARMA)
JUDGE
MAY 26, 2014
mk
WP(C) No.3420/2014 page 5 of 5
