UNION OF INDIA Vs. ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER dated June 01, 2012 allowing OA No.495/2012 filed by the respondent has been questioned by the petitioners.

(2.) CONTINUED suspension of the respondent has been quashed with a direction that the respondent be reinstated with legally admissible consequential benefits, and the latter direction would obviously mean that the respondent would be entitled to be paid wages for the work done when he joins and not that he would be entitled to the difference in wages receivable and the subsistence allowance paid during period of suspension, and to this extent the apprehensions expressed by the writ petitioners as if the writ petitioners have to pay back-wages is incorrect.

(3.) BUT , law requires continued suspension to be reassessed every six months and when the continued suspension orders started hurting the respondent by the year 2010 inasmuch as by said year he had remained suspended for 10 years, he filed OA No.2842/2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal questioning the decisions taken to continue with his suspension, which application was decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal on December 16, 2011, noting that 12 years had lapsed and certain important aspects of the matter pertaining to the respondent's continued suspension were ignored when the decision was last taken to continue the suspension. Exhaustive directions were issued to the Special Review Committee, which considers matters pertaining to continued suspension, warranting the committee to reconsider the matter in the context of the directions issued by the Tribunal. The reason was that these points which were urged by the respondent were ignored by the Special Review Committee. The Tribunal permitted the Committee to obtain the view of CBI with respect to the representation made by the respondent against his continued suspension.