GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY Vs. SYED FAREEDUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The original applicant-writ petitioner was removed from service. He filed OA No.352 of 1986 in terms of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act, (hereinafter called as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) and by an order dated 29-8-1989 the said OA was allowed. A Special Leave Petition, registered as SLP No.2066 of 1990, however, filed by the Railway Administration there - against was dismissed by the Apex Court on 9-1-1995. A review application filed by the Railway Administration was also dismissed on 9-11-1995. As the authorities have failed to reinstate the applicant - writ petitioner into service and give the consequential benefits, he filed a Contempt Case, registered as CP No.81 of 1995 before the Tribunal. During the pendency of the contempt proceedings, the respondents passed an order dated 19-4-1996 reinstating the applicant-petitioner into service, pursuant thereto, the learned Tribunal, while disposing of the Contempt Petition on 4-7-1995, observed:

(3.) As the representation filed by the applicant-petitioner was not disposed of by the authorities, he filed another OA, registered as OA No.587 of 1997, before the Tribunal and the same was disposed of directing the respondents to dispose of the representation filed by him. Subsequent to the order passed by the Tribunal in OA No.587 of 1997, the respondents, relying or on the basis of Rule 1344 (2) R.II (FR 54-A), have released the salary of the applicant-petitioner for a period of three (3) years from September, 1986 to August, 1989 and treating the remaining period during which he was out of service, as non-duty. Questioning the said action of the respondents, the applicant-petitioner has filed another OA., registered as OA No.836 of 1998, in not paying the back wages from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement and in not giving promotion, and all other attendant benefits on par with his co-employees, and the same was dismissed by an order dated 5-10-1998. The applicant-petitioner, questioning the said order of dismissal, filed a review application, registered as RRA No.60 of 1998, before the Tribunal and the same was allowed in part directing: