MOTI LAL Vs. UOI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was recruited as Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) on 30.12.1986, was boarded out from the service in terms of order dated 06.02.2002 and was accorded invalid pension vide order dated 06.06.2002 passed by the respondents. The orders of respondents dated 06.02.2002 and 06.06.2002 were assailed by the petitioner in SWP No.39/2003. The said writ pettion was dismissed by the Writ Court vide its order dated 26th August, 2013. In an appeal i.e LPASW No. 168/2013 filed by the petitioner against the order of the Writ Court dated 26th August, 2013, the same was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 03.04.2014. Consequently, the orders impugned in the writ petition aforesaid dated 06.02.2002 and 06.06.2002 were also set aside. For facility of reference, the operative portion of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 03.04.2014 passed in LPASW No.168/2013 is reproduced hereunder:

(2.) In compliance to the Judgment of the Division Bench (supra), the respondents vide order dated 29.04.2014 reinstated the petitioner in the service with immediate effect and directed him to report to CISF Unit, SHEP Salal. This was followed by another order issued by the respondents on 07th July, 2014 whereby the absence period of the petitioner from the date of invalid pension to the date of his reinstatement i.e from 06.06.2002 to 07.05.2014 was treated as in service with a stipulation that the actual wages for that period would not be given to the petitioner on the principle of "no work no pay". The petitioner filed representation to respondent No.4, but the same was rejected on the ground that he was not entitled to any wages on the principle of "no work no pay". He was also conveyed that the period of his absence has already been treated as in service.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the order dated 07.07.2014 whereby the petitioner was denied the wages for the period w.e.f 06.06.2002 to 07.05.2014. He also called in question the order dated 12th July 2014 passed by the respondents to the extent of imposing interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount which was liable to be refunded.