HARI SINGH CHOUDHARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 21st February, 2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Indore in OA No. 439 of 1998.

(2.) THE facts briefly are that the petitioner was working as a Mail Express Driver in the Railways. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for some misconduct and he was dismissed from service on 30th January, 1981. He chal1enged the order of dismissal before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in OA No. 307 of 1988 and by order dated 11.7.1990 passed in the said OA, the Tribunal directed reinstatement of the petitioner with instructions to the Divisional Railway Manager, Ratlam to pass appropriate orders under FR 54 -A in respect of interim period of absence from duty. The petitioner was thereafter reinstated in service in March 1991 and the Divisional Railway Manager, Ratlam passed an order dated 20.12.1991 treating the entire period of absence as having been spent on duty and that the petitioner shall be paid his ful1 pay and allowances for the said period of absence. The petitioner was thereafter paid his pay and allowances for the period of absence, but was not paid running allowance for the rest days (one day per week), as per the advice of the Accounts Department of the Railways.

(3.) THE petitioner who has appeared in person vehemently submitted that the petitioner had gone to the Tribunal for refusal on the part of the authority to grant running allowance for the days of rest and hence the only question that the Tribunal was called upon to decided was as to whether the petitioner was also entitled to running allowance for one day rest in every week during the period from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. He submitted that since the Tribunal had held that running allowance for the days of rest could not be denied to the petitioner, the Tribunal has decided the matter in his favour and the Tribunal should not have limited the running allowance to 30% of the basic pay of the petitioner.