Zail Singh vs Uoi And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 21 j&K

                                                                               Sr. No. 12



       HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT JAMMU


                                                       SWP No.9900003/2015

Zail Singh                                                               ....petitioner(s)

                      Through :- Mr. C.M.Koul Sr. Advocate with
                                 Mr. A.R.Bhat Advocate.


            V/s


UOI and ors                                                           ....Respondent(s)

                     Through :-     Mr. Eishan Dadeechi, CGSC.

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE

                                  JUDGEMENT(ORAL)

1. In this petition, the petitioner has primarily sought a direction to the

respondents to treat his period of absence from 01.08.1992 to 08.02.2009 as on

duty in view of the judgment passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in

CWP No. 2488 of 1994 filed by the petitioner to challenge the imposition of

penalty of removal from service. He also prays for a certiorari to quash the

communication/signal which has emanated from the Police NES, HQR, whereby

the claim of the petitioner for treating the intervening period as on duty has been

rejected.

2 Briefly stated the facts leading to filing of this petition are that vide

order dated 28th July 1992 passed by Commandant, 10th Bn. CRPF, the petitioner

was removed from service. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against his

removal from service too was dismissed by the DIGP, Range, CRPF Durgapur

(WB) vide its order dated 14.10.1993. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner assailed

the aforesaid orders in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in

CWP No. 2488/1994. The writ petition was contested by the respondents, but the

same was allowed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide its judgment

dated 31.01.2007. The impugned orders were quashed and a direction was issued

to the respondents to take back the petitioner in service. The petitioner was,

however, held entitled to 50% of the arrears of pay and allowances on the ground

that he had not been in actual service of the respondents since the passing of the

impugned order. The respondents have complied with the judgment, but have not

given the benefit of continuity in service to the petitioner. The petitioner appears

to have represented before the respondents for treating his intervening period as

on duty and for release of consequential benefits. On the representation of the

petitioner, the matter was considered by the Commandant, 10 th Bn. CRPF, who

vide his communication dated August, 2013 requested the Deputy Inspector

General of Police, CRPF Range Gowhati (Assam) to examine the matter and

confirm his view as to whether the period from 01.08.1992 to 08.02.2009

(intervening period) for which the petitioner stood paid 50% of the back wages

should be treated as period spent on duty or otherwise, so that that various

service matters such as accrual of Annual Increment, grant of MACP, qualifying

service for calculation of pension etc., can be regularized. The DIG of Police

CRPF Range Gowhati vide his impugned signal conveyed to the Commandant

concerned that since the petitioner has only been held entitled to 50% of the back

wages and has not performed any actual duty during the intervening period, as

such, the period between 01.08.1992 to 08.02.2009 cannot be treated as on duty.

He, however, opined that the intervening period of the petitioner may be

regularized and a speaking reasoned order in this regard be passed. There is,

however, no speaking order placed on record by the respondents.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved of the aforesaid communication/signal

of DIG Police CRPF Range, Gowhati and has filed the instant petition seeking

the reliefs taken note of hereinabove.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties rand perused the

material on record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has succeeded

before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 2488/1994. The High

Court of Punjab and Haryana has not only set aside/quashed the impugned orders

but has also directed the respondents to take back the petitioner in service. There

is a categoric direction to the respondents to pay the petitioner 50% of the arrears

of pay and allowances which clealry signifies that the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana has held the petitioner entitled to notionally continuity in service and

has, thus, instead of paying the full back wages, has allowed only to the extent of

50%. In this background, it cannot be contended by the respondents that the

intervening period is only liable to be regularized for the purpose of paying the

50% of the salary and for no other purpose.

5. I am in agreement with the observations made by the Commandant

10th Bn. in its communication of 2013 addressed to DIG Police CRPF Range,

Gowhati. Once the removal from service of the petitioner has been set aside and

he has been put back in service, as a necessary consequence, he shall be deemed

to be in service during the intervening period. This is so, because it is this period

when he was prevented from performing the duties because of the impugned

order of removal from service. It is not the case of any willful absence on the

part of the petitioner for which he could be denied the wages and other service

benefits. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has, in its discretion, restricted

back wages only to the extent of 50%. The respondents are, thus, required to

treat the petitioner notionally in service and consider him for other consequential

benefits whatever would accrue to him, of course, as per his eligibility and the

other criteria laid down for conferring such benefits. This petition is,

accordingly, disposed of with the directions as aforesaid.

6. The respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner by treating

him notionally in service for the intervening period between 01.08.1992 to

08.02.2009 and also consider him for grant of consequential benefits that may

accrue to him on such continuation in service within a period of eight weeks

from the date, certified copy of this order is served upon the respondents.

(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Jammu:

28.01.2022 Sanjeev

Whether order is speaking:Yes Whether order is reportable:Yes/No