The court held that under FR 54-A(3), a government servant whose dismissal is set aside on merits is entitled to full back wages from the date of dismissal until retirement.

JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. The present appeal assails order dated 23 April 2019 and order dated 24 May 2019 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP (C) 104/2008 and Review Petition 232/2019, respectively.

2. The case in question throws up an interesting issue relating to interpretation of FR 54-A (3), [ (3) If the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by the Court on the merits of the case, the period intervening between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement including the period of suspension preceding such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and the date of reinstatement shall be treated as duty for all purposes and he shall be paid the full pay and allowances for the period, to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be.]

3. The appellant, who was confirmed as Senior Software Engineer in the respondent Organisation [“IGNOU”hereinafter ] with effect from 11 July 1990, applied for 90 days leave to visit USA on 4 September 1992. His leave was approved on 7 September 1992. He further sought extension till 12 July 1993 vide application dated 6 December 1992. On 15 February 1993, he was informed that his request for Earned Leave and Extra Ordinary Leave had not been sanctioned. He was directed to report for duty within 30 days, failing which his services would stand terminated with effect from 22 September 1992. The appellant applied on 23 February 1993 for extension, submitting that he was not physically fit. He returned to India on 22 March 1993 and informed the Registrar of the IGNOU that he was still not in a position to join duties, annexing therewith a medical certificate. He resumed duty on 1 June 1993. He was permitted to join duty and mark attendance.

4. On 3 June 1993, the appellant represented for regularisation of his leave period but was informed, on 11 June 1993, that his services have been terminated with effect from 22 September 1992 vide order dated 7 April 1993 which had been sent to him at his US address.

5. The appellant represented against the said termination on 17 June 1993. On finding no succour from the respondent at the departmental level, he petitioned the High Court of Rajasthan by way of WP (C) 5023/1993, which was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. Civil Special Appeal No.488/2005, preferred thereagainst was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan on 28 November 2007 affirming the decision of the learned

6. The learned Single Judge had, in his order dated 16 August 2005, granted liberty to the appellant to approach the appropriate forum.

7. The appellant, therefore, approached this Court by means of WP (C) 104/2008, [ BhuvaneshVyasv.IGNOU ]

8. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the appellant’s writ petition by judgment dated 23 April 2019. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the findings of the learned Single Judge in extenso thus:

“13. It is not in dispute that vide order dated 06.02.1991, the services of the petitioner was confirmed as Senior Software Engineer in the pay scale of Rs.3700-125-4950-150-5700 w.e.f. 11.07.1990. It is also not in dispute that the post of the petitioner is Group A post. As per appointment letter, services of the peti