Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Uoi & Others vs Moti Lal on 4 May, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on :15.03.2023
Pronounced on:04.05.2023
Date: 28.03.2023
LPA No.41/2019
CM No.1789/2019 [1/2019]
c/w
LPA No.43/2019
CM No.1776/2019 [1/2019]
UOI & others
.....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Sandeep Gupta, CGSC
versus
Moti Lal
.....Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. S.C. Gupta, Advocate
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Tashi Rabstan - Judge
1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment dated 25.10.2018
delivered by the learned Single Judge in SWP Nos. 2499/2014 and 2491/2016,
whereby the learned Single Judge while disposing of both the petitions, held as
under:
"11. Keeping in view the legal position discussed above, the
petitioner cannot be denied the back wages for the period w.e.f.
06.06.2002 to 07.05.2014 as he was wrongfully boarded out from
service without offering him shelter or alternate employment as
mandated by the provisions of Section 47 of the Act of 1995.
Accordingly, the order dated 07.07.2014 to the extent it denies wages
for the period 06.06.2002 to 07.05.2014 and order dated 12.07.2014
to the extent it imposes interest @ 6% are quashed. The petitioner is,
thus, held entitled to wages/salary for the period w.e.f. 06.06.2002 to
2 LPA 41/2019 a/w connected matter
07.05.2014. He shall also be entitled to re-fixation of his salary by
taking into consideration the annual increments which would have
accrued to him had he not been boarded out from service by the
respondents. Needless to say that while calculating and paying the
arrears to the petitioner, the amount received by the petitioner by
way of retiral benefits including the pension shall be adjusted. It is,
however, clarified that in case the amount received by the petitioner
on account of terminal benefits and pension exceeds the amount
payable in terms of this judgment, the same would be refunded by
the petitioner within two months from the date he is intimated. Let
the respondents consider the case of the petitioner for the reliefs
granted hereinabove within a period of two months from the date
certified copy of this order is made available to them."
2. Feeling aggrieved, the writ respondents-appellants herein have filed the
present appeals questioning the judgment/order impugned.
3. Since both the appeals have arisen out of a common judgment involving
common question of facts and law, as such both are being dealt with by this
common judgment.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival
contentions and also perused the appeal file.
5. Admittedly, when the writ petitioner was boarded out from service with
invalid pension with effect from 06.06.2002 being found in low medical
category, i.e., SIH-1 A2P2E1 after he was examined by the Board of Directors
at District Hospital Udhampur and was declared permanently incapacitated for
further service by the respondents, the writ petitioner had already rendered
more than fifteen years of service. Since the writ petitioner had been boarded
out on medical grounds, as such the writ respondents were under an obligation
to offer him alternate employment in CISF in terms of Section 47 of the
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1965 but they failed to do so. Ultimately, the writ petitioner
came to be reinstated on 29.04.2014 only under the orders of this Court.
3 LPA 41/2019 a/w connected matter
Although the writ petitioner came to be reinstated, yet the writ respondents
denied wages to the writ petitioner for the period with effect from 06.06.2002
to 06.05.2014 and also imposed interest @ 6% on recovery of the amount
already released in his favour being final payments.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner filed SWP Nos.2499/2014 and
2491/2016 and the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petitions vide
judgment dated 25.10.2018 allowing the reliefs in favour of writ petitioner.
Now the writ respondents have filed the instant appeals.
7. Since the writ petitioner remained out of job from 06.06.2002 to
07.05.2014 only because of the fault of the writ respondents as they had failed
to offer him alternate employment in the force in terms of Section 47 (supra)
and the writ petitioner came to be reinstated only in compliance to the
judgment of the Division Bench dated 03.04.2014 passed in LPASW
No.168/2013, as such we are in complete agreement with the learned Single
Judge in allowing the afore-quoted reliefs in favour of writ petitioner.
8. Viewed thus, while upholding the judgment of learned Single Judge, we
do not find any merit in the appeals and the same are, accordingly, dismissed
along with connected CMs.
Jammu (Rajesh Sekhri) (Tashi Rabstan)
04.05.2023 Judge Judge
(Anil Sanhotra)
Whether the order is reportable ? Yes/No
Whether the order is speaking ? Yes/No
