Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 50401 of 2002 Petitioner :- Chamman Singh Respondent :- Supdt. Of Police Railway Moradabad Counsel for Petitioner :- D.K. Tiwari,S.Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,A.N.Shukla
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner was employed as Constable in U.P. Police. It appears that on account of over staying leave, his services were terminated. The order of termination dated 13.4.1996 was challenged before this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 16035 of 1996, which was allowed on 4.5.2001vide following orders:-
" Thus the impugned order dated 13.4.1996 is also liable to be set aside on this ground also.
In view of the aforesaid the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 13.4.1996 is quashed.
The parties shall bear their own costs".
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, petitioner has been reinstated in service vide order dated 18.4.2002, however, salary for the period 13.4.1996 till his reinstatement has been denied to him on the ground that there was no direction of the writ Court for payment of arrears of salary. Aggrieved by this action of the respondent, petitioner has again approached this Court by filing present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that once the order of termination was quashed, the consequences which would follow, would be the payment of salary from 13.4.1996 to 18.4.2002. It is also stated that claim of similarly placed person Vikram Singh, who too had over stayed leave between 13.4.1996 to 11.2.1997 was allowed and he has been paid arrears of salary but similar benefit has been denied to petitioner.
A Counter affidavit has been filed stating that since there is no direction for payment of back wages, therefore, the salary for that period has not been paid to him.
I have heard Sri Satya Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
It is not in issue that the petitioner was substantively appointed as Constable in the year 1985. It appears that had over stayed leave for few days.Without conducting any inquiry etc. his services were terminated on 13.4.1998. This order has already been quashed by this Court on 4.5.2001. It is otherwise not in issue that no inquiry etc. was conducted. Once that be so, petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary as also continuity of service etc. However for the period petitioner has not worked i.e. 9.3.1996 to 13.4.1996, would be adjusted against the earned leave if it is otherwise due or else the period would be treated as leave without pay.
With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.1.2019 n.u.