DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE BAREILLY Vs. JASPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT no.1 - appellant aggrieved by an order dated 04.03.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.41241 of 2008, directing the respondents to treat the entire period from the date of his earlier dismissal to 23.12.2008, as spent on duty and to pay to the writ petitioner - respondent no.1 the entire salary and other benefits, has preferred this Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. Short facts giving rise to the present Appeal are that writ petitioner - respondent no. 1, who was employed as Secretary in U.P. Primary Agricultural Credit Society, Bareilly, was dismissed from service by order dated 25.11.1997. He challenged the said order in writ petition no. 27966 of 1998. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 19.12.2006 allowed the writ application and set aside the order of dismissal and observed that in case, he succeeds in the fresh enquiry and is directed to be reinstated, the Disciplinary Authority/Appointing Authority will be at liberty to decide as to how the period from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement shall be treated and to what extent writ petitioner- respondent no.1 shall be entitled to monetary benefits. Later on petitioner - respondent no. 1 was reinstated and ultimately dismissed from service on 23.12.2008. It is a common ground that the aforesaid order of dismissal is subject matter of another writ petition. RESPONDENT no. 1 - petitioner has filed the present writ petition, which has given rise to the impugned order, for payment of back wages from the date of his earlier dismissal till the subsequent order of dismissal. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that since no order was passed to comply the earlier order of this Court dated 19.12.2006, respondent no. 1 - petitioner was entitled for the back wages for the said period and other benefits. This submission found favour with the learned Single Judge and he directed for payment of the entire salary and other benefits. While doing so the learned Judge observed as follows : "Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the fact that the respondents have failed to comply with the judgment of the Court dated 19.12.2006, the writ petition is allowed with directions to the respondents to treat the entire period from the date of his earlier dismissal to 23.12.2008, as spent on duty and to pay to the petitioner the entire salary and other benefits. The entire back wages and other benefits will be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before them. It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of the dismissal order dated 23.12.2008." Mr. Sujeet Kumar Rai, appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that in case the appellant had failed to comply the judgment of the Court dated 19.12.2006, the learned Judge ought to have directed the appellant to comply the said order and mere non-compliance of the order does not entitle respondent no. 1 - petitioner for the salary and other benefits for the period in question. The Division Bench in the earlier decision dated 19.12.2006 directed the Disciplinary Authority/Appointing Authority to take a decision with regard to the extent of benefit, for which respondent no. 1 - petitioner shall be entitled after he succeeds in the fresh enquiry. He points out that after the fresh enquiry, respondent no. 1 - petitioner has been found guilty and in fact dismissed from service which is subject matter of another writ petition. Mr. C.M. Rai, appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 - petitioner submits that no such enquiry has been held and as such the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing for payment of back wages does not suffer from any error. As the order of dismissal has been passed and that is subject matter of another writ petition, we refrain ourselves from expressing any final opinion on that and even if we assume in favour of respondent no. 1 that no fresh enquiry has been held, it cannot be said that he had succeeded in the fresh enquiry. Once it is held so, the order of the Division Bench dated 19.12.2006 does not come into play at all. The Division Bench had clearly observed that the Disciplinary Authority/Appointing Authority shall take decision with regard to the extent of the benefits for which respondent no. 1 shall be entitled if he succeeds in the fresh enquiry. In that view of the matter we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge erred in directing for treating the entire period from the date of his earlier dismissal 23.12.2008, as spent on duty and for payment of the entire salary and other benefits. In the result, Appeal is allowed. Impugned order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.