Ajit Kumar Singh vs Uoi And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 1086 Del

$~5.
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C) 321/2016 and C.M. No. 1297/2016
       AJIT KUMAR SINGH                           ..... Petitioner
                      Through: Mr. Mahesh Srivastava, Advocate
                      with Mr. Vaibhav Manu Srivastava, Advocate

                        versus

       UOI AND ORS                                 ..... Respondents
                        Through: Mr. Rajan Sabharwal, Advocate with
                        Mr. Raghav Sabharwal, Advocate

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                        ORDER

% 11.02.2016

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying

inter alia for issuance of directions to the respondents/RPF to release

his salary for the period w.e.f. April, 1992 to December, 1996

alongwith interest, apart from the travelling allowance and 30 days'

salary in lieu of holidays w.e.f. 09.04.1992 to 23.04.1999. Further, the

petitioner seeks directions to the respondents to grant him MACP from

the due date, i.e. w.e.f., 2012.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

had joined the Railway Protection Force as a Sub Inspector on

01.04.1982 and he was promoted to the post of Inspector. The

petitioner is due to retire in June, 2016. In the year 1999, the

petitioner was suspended on account of a criminal case filed against

him wherein he was finally acquitted vide order dated 17.08.2000. The

petitioner's suspension order was revoked on 23.04.1999. Vide order

dated 02.04.2007, the respondents had regularised the petitioner's

suspension period between 09.04.1992 to 23.04.1999 and decided

that the said period would be treated as spent on duty. The

respondents had also regularised the leave permission granted to the

petitioner during the suspension period and released his salary from

April, 1999 to May, 2004.

3. However, the salary payable to the petitioner for the period

between 09.04.1992 to April, 1999 remained unpaid and other

employment benefits were also not released in his favour. As a result,

the petitioner submitted several representations to the respondents,

the last one being a representation dated 12.03.2015 (Annexure A).

Counsel for the petitioner states that none of the representations

made by the petitioner have been considered by the respondents, thus

compelling him to file the present petition.

4. On the last date of hearing, counsel for the respondents, who

had appeared on advance notice, had sought time to obtain

instructions from the Department. He states today that as per

instructions received, being a very old case, it shall take at least three

months' time for considering and processing the same in accordance

with law.

5. In view of the aforesaid submission, it is deemed appropriate to

dispose of the present petition with directions to the respondent No.2

to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law

by passing a speaking order under written intimation to him within

three months. If any amount is found to be due and payable to the

petitioner, the same shall be released within the same timeline, failing

which the respondents shall pay interest @8% per annum from the

date the said amount had become due and payable, till realisation.

6. The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending applications.

DSATI to the counsel for the respondents.

HIMA KOHLI, J

SUNIL GAUR, J FEBRUARY 11, 2016/rkb/ap