ER PRITAM SINGH AULAKH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. R.K. Joshi, learned Additional Advocate General Punjab, after getting instructions from the respondent states that the petitioner has already been made the payment of subsistence allowance amounting to Rs. 23,868/-vide draft No. 832975 dated 15.9.1994, which was made in the light of the orders dated 5.9.1994, of this Court, and that this Court in its orders dated December 5, 1994, has passed orders directing the respondents that all the dues of the petitioner be released and as such all the dues of the petitioner have since been paid to him as detailed below :-

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that though the petitioner has been re-instated, no orders have been passed as to how the suspension period has to be treated and to what salary/allowances the petitioner is entitled to for the said period. According to the learned counsel, the pendency of the enquiry is no ground not to pass any order regarding the suspension period. He relies upon a judgement of this Court reported as B.D. Singla V. Chief Engineer,1991 1 RSJ 570. In the said judgement it was held that if a person who was placed under suspension but is reinstated pending enquiry, the competent authority must pass an order, irrespective of the continuation of the enquiry, as to how the suspension period is to be treated and to what emoluments such an employee is entitled to. Consequently, we dispose of this writ petition by directing the respondents to pass an appropriate order regarding the suspension period of the petitioner as to how it is to be treated and to what emoluments he is entitled to. Let these directions be carried out within a period of two months of the receipt of copy of this order from this court or a certified copy of the same from the petitioner.