SASIDHARAN Vs. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The directions contained in the Judgment dated 8th February 1983 was given effect to by reinstating the petitioner in service by Ext. P-4 order. By Ext. P-5 order dated 30th August 1983, he was given quasi permanent capacity in the post of Mailman with effect from the date of his reinstatement. Ext. P-6 order dated 20th August 1983 regularised his absence during the period from 19th September 1980 to 23rd March 1983 as duty for all purposes except for pay and allowances. It is stated in Ext. P. 6 that no pay and allowances for the period would be drawn for the broken period, since he had not performed any duty during the said period. The petitioner submits that the direction that no pay and allowances shall be paid to him for the period during which he was kept out of employment is unsustainable.

(2.) The petitioner entered service consequent on his selection for appointment as mailman under the respondent. He was first appointed on 17th March, 1980 and continued in employment till 17th September 1980. He was kept out of employment thereafter. He filed O.P, No. 3766 of 1980 seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to regularise his appointment and allow him to continue in service as in the case of others who were selected along with him. The Original Petition was allowed by Ext. P.3 Judgement dated 8th February 1983 holding that the reason for not allowing him to continue in service on and after 18th September, 1983 was unsustainable. It was, therefore, directed that:

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner relies on five decisions in support of his proposition that he is entitled for pay and allowances during the above period. The decision reported in Devendra Pratan v. State of U.P. AIR 1962 SC 1334 dealing with the case of an employee for salary during the period of suspension. Repelling the contentions on behalf of the State that R.54 of the fundamental rules framed by the State of Utter Pradesh enables the denial of a portion of the whole of the remuneration of an employee under suspension, the Supreme Court held that the rule has no application to the case where an order of dismissal is declared invalid by a Civil Court. It was held that: