Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6678

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member, Sanjiv Kumar, Administrative Member
Tapan Das – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 040/00078/2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R. Islam
For the Respondents: A. Kundu

An employer cannot discriminate between similarly situated employees regarding the treatment of the period of absence following reinstatement; where a Department grants full pay and allowances for the dismissal period to one employee, it must extend the same benefit to another suffering from an identical situation.

Headnote:(A) Fundamental Rules - FR 54(A) - Reinstatement - Treatment of period of absence - Where dismissal is set aside and reinstatement occurs, the competent authority must consider whether the period of absence from duty is to be treated as spent on duty for all purposes including pay and allowances.

(B) Administrative Law - Principles of Service Jurisprudence - Parity of Treatment - When a co-accused or similarly situated employee is granted the benefit of full pay and allowances for the period of absence following reinstatement, the denial of the same to another similarly situated employee is discriminatory and unreasonable.

Facts of the case:
The applicant was dismissed from service, but the order of dismissal was subsequently set aside by the Tribunal, which directed reinstatement while leaving liberty to impose a lesser punishment than dismissal. Upon reinstatement, the respondents imposed a penalty and treated the period of dismissal (absence) as not spent on duty, allowing only 50% of pay and allowances. The applicant challenged this as discriminatory, citing a similar case (Ram Vinay Sharma) where the same department granted full pay and allowances for the intervening period.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal observed that it had previously set aside the dismissal on merits and found the penalty of dismissal disproportionate. Finding that the applicant stood on the same footing as a similarly situated employee who was granted full pay for the same duration of absence, the court found the denial of these benefits to the applicant to be discriminatory.

Issues: Whether the respondents were justified in treating the period of absence between dismissal and reinstatement as not spent on duty and restricting pay and allowances to 50% under FR 54(A).

Ratio Decidendi: Inconsistencies in the treatment of similarly situated employees in the same department for identical lapses cannot be sustained. Where a previous judicial order resulted in a similar officer receiving full benefits for the period of absence, it is legally untenable to deny the same to the petitioner.

Result: O.A. allowed. The order treating the period of absence as not spent on duty was quashed; respondents directed to treat the period as duty for all purposes with consequential benefits.

Table of Content
1. applicant challenges dismissal period pay restrictions following initial reinstatement order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. allegation of discriminatory treatment compared to similarly situated employees regarding back-pay. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. court grants relief based on parity with previously decided identical cases. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)

ORDER

PER: SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A):

This O.A. has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:

8.1. To set aside the impugned speaking order bearing no. AN/IB/D/139/T. Das/Volume IV dated 21-04-2021 (Annexure-A/4) issued by the Controller of Defence Account, Udayan Vihar, Narengi, Guwahati in respect of the penalty imposed upon the applicant.

8.2. To set aside the order bearing No. Part II O.O. No.-354 dated 16-11-2021 (Annexure-A/9) issued by the Deputy Controller of Defence Account, Udayan Vihar, Narengi, Guwahati whereby decided that the period of absence from duty from the date of dismissal from service to the date preceding the date of rejoining after reinstatement i.e. from 29-05-2017 to 29-04-2021 shall be treated as period not spend on duty as he was not fully exonerated from the charges and accordingly under FR 54(A) he shall be paid @ 50% of the pay and allowances otherwise admissible as per extent Rules.

8.3. To direct the respondent authorities to rescind/cancel and/or forbear from further effect to the said impugned speaking order bearing no. AN/IB/D/139/T. Das/Volume IV dated 21-04-2021 (Annexure-A/4) issued by the Controller of Defence Account, Udayan Vihar, Narengi, Guwahati in respect of the penalty imposed upon the applicant and the subsequent order bearing No. Part II O.O. No.-354 dated 16-11-2021 (Annexure-A/9) issued by the Deputy Controller of Defence Account, Udayan Vihar, Narengi, Guwahati.

8.4. To direct the respondent authorities to be treated his dismissal period as on duty from the date of his dismissal till the date of reinstatement i.e. w.e.f. 29-05-2017 to 29-04-2021 has to be regularised as on duty with the all consequential benefit of pay and allowances with seniority for all purposes.

8.5. Cost of the application.

8.6. Pass any such order/orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.

2. As per the applicant, being aggrieved with the dismissal order dated 17.05.2017, he approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 040/00425/2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 20.12.2019 directing the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service forthwith with liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to consider imposition of lesser punishment proportionate to the lapsed alleged to have been committed by the applicant. Aforesaid order of this Tribunal dated 20.12.2019 was challenged by the respondents department before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 222/2020, which was dismissed vide Judgment and Order dated 09.04.2021. In compliance of the said Judgment and Order of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court dated 09.04.2021, respondents department has issued the Speaking Order dated 21.04.2021 whereby reinstated the applicant in service by imposing penalty of reduction by two stages in the time scale of his present pay for two years without any increment during such period the reduction will not have the effect of postponing the future increment of his pay under Rule 11(v) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which will take effect from the date of his re-joining in the office he was posted. Further it was decided that the applicant shall be paid such amount (i.e. the amount not being the whole of pay allowances) under FR 54(A) for the interrupted period arising out of his reinstatement, which will be determined after giving such a notice as required under the Rules. However, the absence of the applicant for the said period shall not be treated as spent on duty which was communicated to the applicant vide letter bearing No. AN/1B/D/139/T.Das/Vol.-IV dated 21.04.2021.

3. Pursuant to the reinstatement order

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6678

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALRajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member, Sanjiv Kumar, Administrative MemberTapan Das – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentOriginal Application No. 040/00078/2022

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member, Sanjiv Kumar, Administrative Member
Tapan Das – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 040/00078/2022