LAWS(J&K)-2018-10-11

GHULAM HASSAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Decided On October 01, 2018
GHULAM HASSAN Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 18.03.2009 passed by the respondent No.5 is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The facts in brief leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner was an employee of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF in short) and was working as Head Constable when he was placed under suspension by the respondents and subsequently compulsorily retired from the service under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act. The penalty of compulsorily retirement imposed upon the petitioner was assailed by the petitioner in SWP No. 1891/2000, which was allowed by a Bench of this Court vide its order and judgment dated 08.10.2001. The order of compulsorily retirement was set aside and petitioner was held entitled to re-instatement. The Court, however, left it free to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The respondents assailed the order of Single Bench in LPASW No. 38/2002 and Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 14.09.2007 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the Single Bench. The petitioner claims that the respondents even approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition but the same was also dismissed by the Apex Court on 15.12008. With a view to seek implementation of the judgment passed by this Court and upheld upto Supreme Court, the petitioner filed contempt petition. The order of Single Bench was complied with by the respondent No.5, who vide his Order dated 18.03.2009 re-instated the petitioner w.e.f. 18.03.2009 and treated the period of his absence from the date of his compulsory retirement, i.e., 27.02000 to the date of reinstatement, i.e., 17.03.2009 as qualifying service for pensionary purpose, but did not allow any pay and allowance for the aforesaid period on the ground that during the said period the petitioner had not performed any duty.

(3.) The petitioner is primarily aggrieved of the last portion of the order impugned whereby he has been denied the pay and allowance for the period he remained out of service, i.e., from 27.02.2000 to 17.02009 and is, therefore, before this Court in the instant petition.