Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 284 (ALL)

STATE OF U. P. v. SHYAM NARAYAN ZEENAT

2017-01-20

SHEO KUMAR SINGH I, SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA

body2017
JUDGMENT By the Court.—The petitioners have assailed the judgment and order dated 18.2.2016 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal. Indira Bhawan, Lucknow in reference petition No. 1508 of 2014 whereby the learned Tribunal has set aside the order dated 21.9.2011 passed by the Senior Superintendent, Central Jail, Bareilly. By means of order dated 21.9.2011, the matter of first respondent was reconsidered pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in writ petition No. 133/2007 where by the Senior Superintendent, Central Jail, Bareilly has treated the period of suspension of first respondent in continuity of service for the purpose of pension but withheld the salary for the period of suspension. Being aggrieved first respondent had challenged the said order before the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal has set aside the same. 2. The learned standing counsel has invited the attention of this Court towards the provisions of Rule 54 of U.P. Financial Fundamental Rules (Parts II to IV), Chapter-VII Rule-54 (1) which is relevant for the present case is quoted as under : “When a Government servant who has been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired is reinstated as a result of appeal or review or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement on superannuation while under suspension or not, the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and made a specific order— (a) Regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of his absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement, as the case be; and (b) Whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. 3. The learned standing counsel has submitted that in view of the aforesaid provisions, it is obvious that the Government has been empowered to consider the suspension period to be treated on duty or not. A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that after holding fresh inquiry the first petitioner has been awarded minor punishment of withholding annual increment without giving any future effect but further the Government has also withheld salary for the period of suspension. 4. A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that after holding fresh inquiry the first petitioner has been awarded minor punishment of withholding annual increment without giving any future effect but further the Government has also withheld salary for the period of suspension. 4. However, it appears from the provisions of the rule that it was not the intention of the Government to provide authority to the employer to withhold the salary of the period of suspension rather the authority was empowered to reconsider the question, whether suspension period shall be treated as spent on duty. By means of order impugned admittedly the period of suspension has been treated in continuity of service. There is no finding of the authority that the said period was not to be treated as spent on duty, therefore, we are of the view that there is specific finding the authority has no jurisdiction to withhold the salary for the period of suspensions. 5. Thus, we do not find error in the impugned order. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.