MIR HUSSAIN Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was dismissed from service by Commandant 1st Bn. Auxiliary Police, Srinagar, vide order No. 402 of 1991 dated 22.11.1991. Same was challenged by medium of SWP No. 153/94 which has been allowed vide judgment dated 17.07.1997. The order of dismissal has been quashed. Fresh enquiry was required to be held, assumption of duty was directed to abide by the final orders to be passed by the competent authority. The fate of the intervening period was also required to be decided in accordance with law. In compliance to the judgment, fresh order was passed by the respondents bearing No. 2874 of 2002 dated 01.09.2002. In terms whereof, petitioner was reinstated, the period of absence was directed to be adjusted by sanctioning earned as well as half pay leave whatever was due to him at the time of his dismissal and remaining period was treated as dies-non. Dissatisfied therewith, petitioner again filed SWP No. 777/2003 which has been disposed of on 15.06.2003 where-under period of absence was directed to be re-considered. On re-consideration of the same, Order No. 3562 of 2004 dated 21.10.2004 has been issued which is quoted hereunder:

(2.) Again dissatisfied therewith, petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking quashment of the aforesaid order dated 20.10.2004 to the extent it provides that the petitioner shall not be entitled to monetary benefits for the period of absence on the rule of "no work no pay".

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would project that the order impugned dated 21.10.2004 providing that the petitioner shall not be entitled to monetary benefits runs contrary to the decision taken by the respondents because in the order it is clearly indicated that the period of absence of the petitioner with effect from 15.7.1990 to 07.03.2000 i.e. till the date of his joining in service to be treated as on duty. Once he is treated to be on duty, then there is no scope for denying monetary benefits for the said period. Learned counsel would contend that if worse comes worst, still petitioner at least shall be entitled to 50% of the wages for the period of his absence and in case same is allowed, he will be satisfied.