AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pradeep Kumar, M(A)
Applicant was involved in a criminal case (FIR No.430/1993) and was suspended on 16.08.1993. While this was pending, he was involved in another criminal case (FIR No.470/1995) and was arrested by police on 15.07.1995. He was again suspended. Thereafter, he was convicted and was in jail for a sentence of 12 years RI and was dismissed from service w.e.f. 27.02.1997. Subsequently, he was acquitted by the Hon'ble Apex Court (in Criminal Appeal Nos. 943/2005, 974/ 2003 and 1809/2009) wherein following directions were passed vide a common order dated 01.12.2010:-
"xxx xxx
For the aforesaid reasons, the conviction and sentence of the appellate including the fine awarded by the Courts below is set aside.
The appeal is accordingly, allowed.
The appellant has already undergone the sentence and stated to have paid the fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. In the circumstances, there shall be a direction directing the respondent herein to forthwith return the fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/-collected from the appellant."
Thereafter, the Appellate Authority had set aside the dismissal order on 19.04.2012. By that time, applicant had already attained age of 60 years and as such, was superannuated on 31.05.2010.
The applicant approached the Tribunal for direction to open sealed cover for certain DPCs held earlier. Thereafter, his sealed cover envelopes were opened wherein it was found that he was assessed as unfit.
Feeling aggrieved, the applicant preferred an OA No.4050/2013 which was decided vide orders dated 23.04.2015 wherein following directions were passed:-
"15. In the light of the above discussions, we partly allow the O.A. and direct the respondents to convene and hold a meeting of the Review DPC to consider and assess the suitability of the applicant for promotion to the grade of Assistant Superintendent with effect from 6.3.1996 when his junior was promoted. The respondents are also directed to scrupulously follow the guidelines circulated by the DoP&T's OM dated 10.4.1989 while placing the service records of the applicant before the Review DPC. The Review DPC shall consider and assess the suitability of the applicant on the basis of the applicant's service records produced by the respondent-departmental authorities in accordance with the guidelines referred to above and shall not be swayed by the fact of suspension of the applicant and criminal cases against the applicant during the relevant period as the same stood wiped out by virtue of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and orders passed by the respondent-departmental authorities. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we order that in the event the Review DPC recommends the applicant for promotion with effect from 6.3.1996 when his junior was promoted, the respondents shall grant him such promotion on notional basis and accordingly, revise his pensionary benefits and pay the arrears of pensionary benefits on actual basis. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from today."
The applicant, however, felt aggrieved with this judgment (para 4 supra) and he preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition(C) No.10796/2016 which was decided vide Order dated 30.01.2019 wherein following directions were passed:-
"xxx xxx
Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the view that the above-said grievance of the petitioner is justified. It was for the respondents to take a call, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, whether to treat the promotion as notional or actual and on that basis to determine whether the petitioner was entitled to arrears of enhanced pay on actual basis, or only on notional basis. Accordingly, we dispose of the present writ petition by modifying the direction issued by the Tribunal. The respondents should now consider the aspect whether the petitioner would be entitled to promotion on notional basis, or actual basis. The said decision be taken within next two months and communicated to the petitioner."
It is clear from above, that the directions by the Tribunal (para 4 supra), were modified to certain extent (para 5 supra).
Subsequently, the respondents passed an order dated 16.10.2019 wherein the respondents have treated the applicant entitled for promotion on notional basis only and the back-wages have been refused. Feeling aggrieved at this refusal, the applicant has now preferred the instant OA seeking arrears of pay along with 18% interest.
On being specifically queried, whether any representation has been preferred by the applicant, it was advised that no such representation has yet been submitted to respondents.
In view of this, the Tribunal is of the view that the present OA is pre-mature. The same is dismissed as such with liberty to the applicant to prefer a representation before the respondents, if he so wishes. No costs.