KIUCHAM YIMCHUNGER Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Pius Lotha, the learned Addl. Advocate General, Nagaland for the State Respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as NCE (Water carrier) by appointment order dated 31. 5. 2002 issued by Commandant, 3rd NAP Bn. Tuensang on purely temporary basis, but subsequently his appointment was converted to the post of Constable (GD) against the existing vacancy vide order dated 28. 2. 2007 issued by the said Commandant (Annexure-C to the writ petition ). The petitioner was discharged from service w. e. f. 17. 5. 2007 having found that he was physically below the minimum required height. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid discharge order dated 22. 5. 2007 the petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing W. P. (C) 53 (K) 2008 and the said petition was disposed of by order dated 23. 4. 2008 with a direction to the petitioner to submit representation and the same should be considered by the respondent authorities within a period of 3 (three) months. In compliance to the aforesaid order, the Respondent No. 2, Director General of Police, after examining the records/documents, come to the conclusion that the said discharge order dated 22. 5. 2007 was not justified and directed to reinstate the petitioner in service as NCE with immediate effect taking the period of absence from 17. 5. 2007 till his joining as Extra Ordinary Leave without break of service. Accordingly, Respondent No. 3, the Commandant, 3rd NAP Tuensang reinstated the petitioner in service as NEC (Cook) w. e. f. 1. 8. 2008 (FN) and posted him to 'd' Coy. Shamator vide order dated 1. 8. 2008. In the said reinstatement order, it has been made clear that the absent period w. e. f. 17. 5. 2007 to 31. 7. 2008 shall be treated as Extra Ordinary Leave without break of service.

(3.) MR . Limawapang, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, since the discharge order has been held by the Director General of Police as not justified and directed his reinstatement, it is incumbent upon the respondents to pay him the back wage for the absent period. In support of submission, the learned counsel relied upon the case of Union of India Vs. Madhusudan Prasad, 2004 (1) SCC 43, Manorama Verma Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 671, Lianchhawana Vs. State of Mizoram and Ors. , reported in 1999 (1) GLT 589.