Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Apr 9: High Court has come to the rescue of a Junior Engineer, who despite being re-instated following his dismissal from the service was not paid consequential service benefits.
The petitioner Arshad Hussain was appointed as Sectional Officer (Electrical) and later re-designated as Junior Engineer in the State Power Development Department on November 19, 1986. Somewhere in the year 1990, he was detained under the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act.
While the petitioner was in detention, Government issued order dismissing him from service with immediate effect in terms of the provision of Section 126 of the Constitution of J&K State. However, the petitioner’s detention was quashed by the court. Thereafter, he challenged his dismissal from service., which was allowed by the writ court by judgment dated 20.05.2005.
The order of dismissal impugned in the writ petition was set aside. It was, however, observed in the judgment that the State may hold a regular enquiry in the case in accordance with the rules. The judgment of the writ court was challenged in Letters Patent Appeal which was dismissed by the Letters Patent Bench by judgment dated 16.08.2007. The judgment was not implemented and the petitioner had to file contempt petition.
Later, Government reinstated the petitioner and appointed Farooq Ahmad Peer, Secretary, Home Department, as Inquiry Officer to conduct enquiry into the matter and furnish his findings with definite recommendations to the Government with regard to treatment of intervening period of the petitioner.
The Inquiry Officer, in his report, stated that petitioner had been booked under PSA and subsequently dismissed from service surreptitiously. However, the Government didn’t pass the orders with regard to the intervening period of the petitioner.
After hearing counsels for both the sides, Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey observed, “once the dismissal order was quashed, there was no question of referring the petitioner’s case to the Screening Committee to decide about his intervening period”.
Accordingly, High Court directed the respondents to treat the petitioner on duty for the entire intervening period, pay him the salary for the period together with increments, determine, accord and restore him his due place of seniority on the basis of his date of appointment and accord him all consequential service benefits, including promotions which he would have otherwise earned in normal course.
“The needful shall be done by the respondents within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this judgment is served on respondent by the petitioner”, Justice Magrey directed.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel