Back
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, MANOJ JAIN
Kamal Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--Petitioner impugns order dated 18.11.2016 and order dated 19.01.2018 to the extent that the period intervening between 12.01.2016 and 01.11.2016 was treated as extraordinary leave and seeks a direction that the said period be treated as spent on duty for all contents and purposes with all consequential benefits.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was wrongfully retired on the ground of physical unfitness w.e.f. 12.01.2016. Subsequently, petitioner was reinstated in service on 01.11.2016 on the ground that his termination was contrary to the rule position and that the Medical Board by which he was declared unfit, had not been properly convened and that the procedure as prescribed under Rule 25 of BSF Rules 1969 was not followed. He submits that despite reinstatement, petitioner has been denied salary and benefits for the said period.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent contends that the order of reinstatement dated 06.10.2016 directed that period of absence of petitioner from the date of his retirement till his re-joining would be regularized in terms of Fundamental Rule 54 (5). He submits that in terms of Fun
The discretion conferred by Fundamental Rule 54 in regulating the period of absence as duty with full salary is apparent and explicit, and the claim of an employee to treat the period as duty with fu....
Employment and service matter - Wages - No substantial difference between Rule 54 and Rule 54-A of Fundamental Rules, except that in one case, reinstatement is in consequence of an order made in depa....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Rule 54 of the Rules, emphasizing the importance of principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedi....
Even though there is no express requirement in Fundamental Rule 54[3] for giving an opportunity to employee before passing an order, giving of such an opportunity is implicit in the exercise of power....
The court ruled that a government servant's suspension period must be treated as on duty with full pay if acquitted of charges and if disciplinary proceedings result in a minor penalty.
The duty of the competent authority to consider and pass specific orders regarding pay, allowances, and the treatment of the suspension period as duty, and the principles of natural justice in afford....
An employee acquitted of criminal charges is not automatically entitled to salary or benefits for the suspension period unless explicitly provided by the reinstatement terms. (Sections 10(1)(b)(i) an....
Petitioner without assigning any reasons and same amounts to clear discrimination and same is in clear violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
