NAROTTAM KUMAR JHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the Petitioner is that while working as Constable in CISF, he was removed from service with effect from 15.9.1984 in pursuance of the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him on the allegation of a false case of dacoit and ultimately, by virtue of the Order Dated 22.1.1985, the Appellate authority issued an order reinstating the Petitioner in service with full pay and allowances. The Appellate authority also directed that the period of suspension of the Petitioner would be treated as duty and the period from the date of removal to the date of rejoining duty as leave due. On 24.12.1988 the Petitioner was promoted to the rank of Naik with effect from 23.12.1988. On 10.10.1997 the holders of the post of Naik were given the rationalized rank of HC/GD and pay scale of that post. On 15.11.1999 on being found fit by the Review DPC, the Petitioner was given notional promotion to the rank of Naik, w.e.f. 24.11.1986, i.e., the date his batch mates were promoted to the said post and his pay was regularized under FR -27 from the date of such notional promotion. On 31.12.1999 the Petitioner was given notional promotion to the rank of HC/GD w.e.f. 16.12.1989 and his pay were regularized under FR -27 from the date of said notional promotion. Thereafter, the impugned Order Dated 10.5.2000 was passed by the Assistant Inspector General (Estt), wherein it is indicated that in view of the provisions of FR -17 and on the principle of 'No Work, No Pay', the Petitioner is not entitled to the arrear of salary of the post of Naik from 24.11.1986 to 22.12.1988 and of HC/GD from 16.12.1989 to 9.10.1997 as he had actually performed duties of these posts during the said periods.

(2.) NOW the moot question arises whether FR -17, basing upon which the benefit of arrear scale of pay was denied, is applicable to the Petitioner. Admittedly, the Petitioner was put under suspension, removed from service and ultimately, he was reinstated by the Appellate order with full back wages and regularizing the period of his absence. It is also not disputed that the Petitioner was given promotion to the next higher rank from the date, on which his batch mates were given promotion. That date fell during the period when the Petitioner was removed from service.

(3.) THIS being the position, the irresistible conclusion would be that the order, which has been passed by the Appellate authority in terms of FR -54, shall be final.