The central legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement into service and back wages in accordance with Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, and the denial of wages and re-fixation of salary was unjustified.

1. The petitioner, who was recruited as Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) on 30.12.1986, was boarded out from the service in terms of order dated 06.02.2002 and was accorded invalid pension vide order dated 06.06.2002 passed by the respondents. The orders of respondents dated 06.02.2002 and 06.06.2002 were assailed by the petitioner in SWP No.39/2003. The said writ pettion was dismissed by the Writ Court vide its order dated 26August, 2013. In an appeal i.e LPASW No. 168/2013 filed by the petitioner against the order of the Writ Court dated 26August, 2013, the same was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 03.04.2014. Consequently, the orders impugned in the writ petition aforesaid dated 06.02.2002 and 06.06.2002 were also set aside. For facility of reference, the operative portion of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 03.04.2014 passed in LPASW No.168/2013 is reproduced hereunder:

“For our afore-recorded reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment dated 26.08.2013 passed by the learned Writ Court. Consequently, orders dated 06.02.2002 and 06.06.2002 passed by the respondents are set aside. Writ petitioner-appellant shall stand reinstated into the service. Respondents are directed to adjust the appellant on a post in accordance with the mandate contained in Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)Act, 1995. The necessary orders in this regard shall be passed within a period two week’s from the date a copy of this order is served upon them”.

2. In compliance to the Judgment of the Division Bench (supra), the respondents vide order dated 29.04.2014 reinstated the petitioner in the service with immediate effect and directed him to report to CISF Unit, SHEP Salal. This was followed by another order issued by the respondents on 07th July, 2014 whereby the absence period of the petitioner from the date of invalid pension to the date of his reinstatement i.e from 06.06.2002 to 07.05.2014 was treated as in service with a stipulation that the actual wages for that period would not be given to the petitioner on the principle of “no work no pay”. The petitioner filed representation to respondent No.4, but the same was rejected on the ground that he was not entitled to any wages on the principle of “no work no pay”. He was also conveyed that the period of his absence has already been treated as in service. 3 Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the order dated 07.07.2014 whereby the petitioner was denied the wages for the period w.e.f 06.06.2002 to 07.05.2014. He also called in question the order dated 12July 2014 passed by the respondents to the extent of imposing interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount which was liable to be refunded.

4. While the aforesaid writ petiton was pending adjudication, it is claimed that the pay of the petitioner came to be re-fixed and the petitioner came to know that he has also been denied the benefit of annual increments from the date of his boarding out till reinstatement. He filed another petition being SWP No.2491/2018 claiming, inter alia, quashing of order dated 07.07.2014 with a direction to the respondents to re-fix his pay.

5. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions aforesaid arise out of the reinstatement of the petitioner in compliance to the Judgment of the Division Bench dated 03.04.2014,therefore, both the petitions were heard together.

6. The respondents have filed their objections in which the stand taken is that the petitioner was boarded out as he was found to be in low medical category i.e S1H-1A2P2E1. He was examined by the Board of Doctors at District Hospital Udhampur on 05.06.2002 where he was declared permanently incapacitated for further service of the respondents. It is submitted that consequent upon the opinion of the Medical Board and acting as per Rule 38 of CCS (Pension) Rule, 1972, the petitioner was b