RUKHSANA NAJNIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner No. 1 is the widow of Md. Sohrab, original petitioner who had sought quashing of the order dated 7.1.2003 (Annexure-5) passed by the Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, B.T.P.S (DVC), Bokaro Thermal by which he was imposed with punishment of reduction of pay to the lowest stage in the time scale of pay for a period of 5 years for being found guilty of the charges under Article of Charge No. II and III. It was further directed that he will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period the reduction will have effect of postponing his future increment of pay under Rule-34(V) of the C.I.S.F. Rule, 2001. This order was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 23.8.2003 (Annexure-6) passed by the D.I.G., C.I.S.F., Bokaro Steel Ltd. Petitioner had also sought quashing of order dated 8.2.2003 (Annexure-7) passed by the Commandant, C.I.S.F. BTPS (DVC), Bokaro whereby it was held that the intervening period from 9.3.1994 i.e. the date of his dismissal till 19.1.2003 will be treated as "Dies-Non" for all purpose of his service as he has not performed any duty during the intervening period. The principle of "No Work No Pay" was applied, so far as his salary for the intervening period is concerned. However, during the pendency of the writ application the original petitioner, Md. Sohrab having died he has been substituted by his legal heirs i.e. his widow and his children. Now the petitioner (widow of the original petitioner) seeks to press the last prayer as aforesaid by challenging the order dated 8.2.2003 (Annexure-7) according to which she is being denied the consequential pensionary benefit arising out of the consequences of treating the intervening period from 9.3.1994 to 19.1.2003 as "Dies-Non".

(2.) The background of this controversy is that the original petitioner had been dismissed from service on account of being found guilty of 3 articles of charges which was challenged in the writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2796 of 1994(R) and by a judgment dated 16.8.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the impugned order of punishment was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the disciplinary authority to pass fresh order in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of M. Paul Anthony Vrs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. Reported in 1993(3) SCC 679. The operative part of the order as in para 6 and 7 (Annexure-4) dated 16.8.2002 is being quoted herein below:--

(3.) Thereafter, the respondent - Commandant, CISF proceeded to pass the order dated 7.1.2003 in which the petitioner was exonerated of the first article of charge for outraging the modesty of a women in view of the judgment passed by this Court, as stated herein above. However, in respect of other 2 charges, which were found to be clearly established, the aforesaid punishment of reduction of time scale of pay for a period of 5 years was imposed upon the petitioner. In the said order it was observed that separate order would be passed for regularization of service of the petitioner- employee for the intervening period from 9.3.1994 till the date of his reinstatement in service. That order is contained at Annexure-7 to the writ application. This order specifically indicates that since the employee had not performed his duty during the intervening period, therefore applying the principle of "No Work No Pay" the intervening period from 9.3.1994 to 19.1.2003 i.e. from dismissal to his reinstatement in service respectively would be treated as "Dies-Non" for all purposes of service.