MOHD. YAR KHAN Vs. D.C.B.T.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the case of U.P. State ware Housing Corporation, Lucknow v. Sri Brish Bhan Singh and another, 2011 29 LCD 1348: wherein this Court in paragraph-9 held as under:

(3.) In view of the above legal position, the inquiry so instituted/restarted in January, 2008 cannot be allowed to continue after attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 30 9 2008 As such, impugned order dated 291 2008 passed by authority concerned is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. As Writ Petition No 420 (SB) of 2008 has already been allowed by this Court inter aha on the ground that inquiry cannot be allowed to continue after attaining the age of superannuation and as such, the order of punishment, which has been passed to the effect that the petitioner is not being paid salary for the period of his suspension and also for the period during which he remained out of job is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed Writ Petition No 383 (SB) of 2011 is also allowed The petitioner is also entitled for payment of salary for the period of his suspension and for the period he remained out of job, accordingly, if the same has not been paid to him, the respondents are directed to pay the same.