JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. R Hazarika, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A C Kalita, the learned Central Government Counsel (CGC), who represents the respondents. 2. The petitioner was recruited as a Constable in the year 1992 and was attached with the 73rd Battalion of the CRPF. In pursuant to a Disciplinary Proceeding (DP), he was removed from service on 31.3.1997. The aggrieved Constable filed the Civil Rule No.3491/1998 to challenge the disciplinary action and the Writ Court on 16.2.2004 (Annexure-A) had observed that since the delinquent had caused a simple injury to a colleague, the removal punishment is disproportionate. The Disciplinary Authority was accordingly directed to re-consider the penalty under the judgment dated 16.2.2004 (Annexure-A).The CRPF authorities then filed the Writ Appeal No.225 /2004 but the same was dismissed by the Division Bench on 15.11.2006. The Review petition No.47/2009 was then filed by the employer but this too was rejected by the Court on 29.10.2009. 3. During the pendency of the Writ Appeal, the office order dated 20.7.2005 (Annexure-B) was issued whereby, the Commandant of the 73rd Battalion, reinstated the petitioner and he resumed the duty as a CRPF Constable on 26.7.2005. 4. In terms of the direction issued by the High Court in the Civil Rule No.3491/1998, the removal penalty was substituted by the punishment of stoppage of increments for 3 years with cumulative effect, under the office order of June, 2010 (Annexure-F). The intervening period between removal to reinstatement (1.4.1997 – 25.7.2005) was categorized as Dies Non, by the Disciplinary Authority. 5.1 Mr. R Hazarika, the learned Counsel submits that that the Dies Non categorization of the out of job period will perhaps disentitle the Constable to receive any salary but he contends that under the punishment order of June, 2010 (Annexure-F), increments and promotional opportunities cannot be denied, for the serving Constable. 5.2 The petitioner argues that his junior colleagues are receiving better salary and have also been promoted to higher rank and even though the gap period of 1.4.1997 – 25.7.2005 may not entail any salary payment, the out of service period should notionally be taken into account, for considering increment and promotion, for the long serving Constable. 6. On the other hand, Mr. 6. On the other hand, Mr. A C Kalita, the learned CGC submits that when the High Court directed the disciplinary authority to impose a lesser penalty for the delinquent Constable, the authorities have complied with the Court’s direction and ordered for stoppage of increment. Since no service was received from the delinquent between 1.4.1997 – 25.7.2005, the CGC submits that the petitioner cannot claim any service benefit, for this gap period. 7. For the misconduct committed by the Constable, the disciplinary authority has directed for stoppage of increment for 3 years with cumulative effect and the off service period was ordered to be treated as Dies Non. While such penalization will disentitle the Constable to salary for the non-working period, the gap in service can however be notionally counted for determining the terminal benefits, increments and also consideration of promotion, for the reinstated Constable. 8. The petitioner has served in the CRPF since 1992 and by now, many of his contemporaries have been promoted and all of them are receiving better emoluments than the petitioner. If the punishment of stoppage of increment would also entail denial of increments, terminal benefits and non-consideration of promotion for the long serving Constable, such deprivation in my understanding, will amount to double punishments for the solitary misconduct committed by the Constable. The penalty of stoppage of increment imposed on the petitioner in June, 2010 is to continue for 3 years with cumulative effect but when the punishment period ends, the Constable is entitled to consideration for increment, promotion and also terminal benefits like all his colleagues in the CRPF. 9. However, unfortunately the employer has failed to consider the increments and promotion for the Constable for all these years. This in my understanding has resulted in injustice for the petitioner and therefore, the employer must be ordered to restore the service entitlement for the petitioner. 10. Following the above, the respondents are directed to allow increments for the Constable and also consider his promotion in accordance with the applicable norms, by considering him to be in service only notionally, between 1.4.1997 – 25.7.2005. As the petitioner has been subjected to multiple litigations and has been denied the usual service benefits, the employer must consider the entitlement of the petitioner in terms of this direction within 3 months, from the date of receipt of this order. As the petitioner has been subjected to multiple litigations and has been denied the usual service benefits, the employer must consider the entitlement of the petitioner in terms of this direction within 3 months, from the date of receipt of this order. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any salary for the gap period. It is ordered accordingly. 11. With the above direction, the case stands allowed in the manner indicated by leaving the parties to bear their respective cost.