AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Ms. P. Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioner and Dr. N. Mozika, learned ASG.
The petitioner was recruited as a General Duty (GD) by the respondent, Assam Rifles w.e.f. 10-12-2008. Thereafter, petitioner was initially sent for training at Lakhimpur. In the month of February, 2009, the petitioner was sent for further training to Varanasi at 39 GTC. It is the case of the petitioner that after training for 25 weeks he fell ill and in September, 2009 petitioner was returned from training at Lakhimpur and thereafter he was sent to Shillong for medical Check-up. It is also the case of the petitioner that he was asked to go on medical treatment.
The petitioner contends that in April, 2010 he came to Shape - 1 with good health and without any illness. However, he was discharged from service in the Assam Rifles w.e.f 31-08-2010, by discharge certificate dated 24-08-2010 on the ground that his stay in the Assam Rifles Training Centre and School was exceeding 24 (twenty-four) months.
Petitioner thereafter filed the writ petition being WP(C) No. 288 of 2015 before this Court and the petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 16-06-2016. Accordingly, respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner to his service. Consequently, this Court quashed and set aside the discharge certificate under which the petitioner was discharged.
The petitioner was reinstated as a General Duty in pursuant to the order of the High Court dated 16-06-2016. The petitioner joined his training on 01-10-2016 at ARTC Dimapur (Assam Rifles Training Centre). There is no dispute that petitioner has completed the training and after completion of the training period, he was given the regular posting.
The petitioner has approached this Court making a grievance that he has not been paid the back-wages/ salary from 01-09-2010 to 30-09-2016.
Ms. P. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order under which petitioner was discharged was set aside by the learned Single Judge of this Court with further direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner. Ms. P. Agarwal, learned counsel submits that respondents have complied with that order. Ms. P. Agarwal, learned counsel further submits that the petitioner, therefore, is entitled for the wages for the period between 01-09-2010 to 30-09- 2016 as the petitioner could not work because of the discharge order which was set aside by this Court. Ms. P. Agarwal, learned counsel in support of her contention relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Dayanand Chakrawarty & Ors. reported in (2013) 7 SCC 595, and Ex Rifleman No. 63282 Jawahar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2021) SCC OnLine Utt 127.
Dr. N. Mozika, learned ASG contested the petition by filing the affidavit-in-reply. Dr. N. Mozika, learned ASG firstly submitted that petitioner was discharged in the month of September, 2010 and thereafter, he approached this Court belatedly after expiry of 5 (five) years. Dr. N. Mozika, learned ASG submits that the order of the High Court directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner is complied with. The Petitioner has not sought any relief about back-wages in WP(C) No. 288 of 2015 and therefore this relief cannot be grated in the present petition. Dr. N. Mozika, learned ASG submitted that since the petitioner approached the High Court belatedly, wages of the said period cannot be given to him. Dr. N. Mozika, learned ASG in support of his contention he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mangilal Kajodia Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2020) 2 SCC 723, and the Decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sumer Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2016) SCC OnLine Del 3813.
Having gone through the petition along with the Annexures and affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents and having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, I find no merit in the petition. The petitioner was discharged w.e.f 31-08-2010 on the ground that he could not complete the training within the period of 24 (twenty-four) months. The petitioner kept quiet for a long period and, only in the year 2015 approached this Court and filed writ petition being WP(C) No. 288 of 2015. The petitioner by filing this petition only claimed reinstatement, however, he did not claim any back-wages in the said writ petition. As stated above, this petition was allowed and directions were given to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner. Admittedly, this order was complied with by the respondents and accordingly, he by order dated 16-06-2016 was reinstated and allowed to complete the training. The respondents complied with the High Court order without any delay.
By the present petition, petitioner is claiming the wages for the period of 6 years i.e. 01-09-2010 to 30-09-2016. In my considered opinion, petitioner will not be entitled for the back-wages since he approached the High Court challenging the discharge order only after 5 (five) years. Had the petitioner approached the High Court immediately after the discharge order, the issue of the non-payment of the salary for the period between 01-09-2010 to 30-09-2016 would not have arisen. Be that as it may, the petitioner was reinstated and allowed to join the training in pursuant to the decision of this Court in WP(C) No. 288 of 2015 and, accordingly he joined the training w.e.f 01-10-2016, the petitioner completed the training and thereafter he was granted regular posting. The facts remain that from the date of petitioner's recruitment he took 8 (eight) years to complete the training. Admittedly, under the rules petitioner is obliged to complete the training within the period of 24 (twenty-four) months. Granting relief as claimed in the present petition would amount to grant of paid training for the period of 8 years as against the 24 (twenty-four) months. I am, therefore, not inclined to grant the prayer claimed in the petition.
I have gone through the decisions cited by the respective counsels However, I find those decisions are not applicable in the facts of the present case. Petition is devoid of any merit and same is accordingly disposed of.