Reinstatement does not entitle an employee to salary arrears for the period of dismissal unless explicitly stated in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner through the medium of present writ petition has challenged the Order No. PDC88 of 2019 dated 13.03.2019 whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of salary w.e.f 24.04.2011 to the date of his reinstatement i.e 02.01.2014 has been declined. The petitioner has also sought a direction upon the respondents that he be treated as reinstated into service w.e.f 24.04.2011 and that arrears of salary during the aforesaid period i.e from 24.04.2011 to 02.01.2014 be released in his favour.

2. Heard and considered.

3. It appears that the petitioner was dismissed from service in terms of Government Order No. 365-GAD of 2007 dated 02.04.2007 as his conduct and activities were found to be detrimental and prejudicial to the security of the State. The said order was passed by the competent authority in terms of proviso(c) to Section 126(2) of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir after dispending with the requirement of holding regular enquiry against the petitioner.

4. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner by way of writ petition bearing SWP No. 500/2007 titled ‘Abdul Rashid Lone vs State & Ors.’ The writ petition came to be decided by this Court in terms of judgment dated 26.04.2011. Vide the said judgment, the order of dismissal dated 02.04.2007 was found to be un-sustainable in law, as such, the same was quashed leaving it open to the respondents to hold a regular enquiry against the petitioner. It was further directed that the petitioner be reinstated in service but for the period w.e.f 02.04.2007 till he is reinstated, he shall not be entitled to any salary and the said period will count only for the pensionary benefits.

5. The said judgment came to be challenged by the respondents by way of LPA No. 185/2011. The judgment of the writ Court was upheld by the Division Bench in terms of order dated 11.04.2012. The respondents, it seems, assailed the judgments of the Division Bench and the Writ Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.38651/2012 before the Supreme Court. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court in terms of order dated 29.11.2013.

6. After having failed before the superior fora, the respondents in terms of Government Order No. 09-GAD of 2014 dated 02.01.2014 reinstated the petitioner in service by implementing the judgment of the Writ Court. However, while revoking the dismissal order of the petitioner, it was provided that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any salary w.e.f 02.04.2007 till the date of issuance of the said order i.e 02.01.2014 and the said period shall count only for pensionary benefits.

7. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order to the extent of declining to him the benefit of salary arrears w.e.f 24.04.2011 to 02.01.2014 on the ground that the judgment of the Writ Court was delivered on 24.04.2011, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement in service with effect from the said date. It has been contended that merely because the respondents have chosen to assail the judgment of the Writ Court before the Division Bench and thereafter before the Supreme Court without there being any stay of the judgment of the Writ court, does not offer a ground for the respondents to deny the arrears of salary to the petitioner during the period, the judgment of the Writ Court remain under challenge. It has been further contended that by denying the salary arrears to the petitioner for the aforesaid period, he has been subjected to double jeopardy and a grave prejudice has been caused to him.

8. If we have a look at the judgment of the Writ Court dated 24.04.2011, it has been clearly indicated therein that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any salary w.e.f 02.04.2007, the date of which he was dismissed from service till he is reinstated and that the said period shall count only for the pensionary benefits. The Writ Court has consciously used the term ‘till he is reinstated’ and avoided to use the term ‘till the date of judgm