$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 24.03.2026 + W.P.(C) 12427/2022 SURAMPAL SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Ujjwal K. Priyadarshi, Mr. Rishit Kumar, Mr. Harshit Sharma and Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advs.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC along with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Ms. Vishruti Pandey and Mr. Sachin Garg, Advs. for R – 1 to 4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.:

1. Through the present petition, the Petitioner has challenged the correctness of the order dated 11.07.2022 (hereafter ‘impugned order’), passed in OA No. 1725/2022, whereby the learned Central Administrative Tribunal rejected the Petitioner’s prayer for grant of back wages.

2. Briefly stated, the Petitioner was employed as a Trained Graduate Teacher in the Directorate of Education of GNCTD. By way of order dated 18.01.2011, the Petitioner was placed under suspension from 24.11.2010 pursuant to his arrest in FIR No. 35/2008, registered at Police Station Gulawati Buland Sahar, Uttar Pradesh, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Petitioner was convicted by the learned Sessions Court on 18.06.2013 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and six months and to pay a fine of ₹1000/- for the offences under Sections 307/149 of the IPC. The Petitioner was further awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 506 of the IPC. As a consequence of his conviction, the competent authority imposed a penalty of dismissal from service on the Petitioner.

3. The Petitioner filed an appeal challenging his conviction before the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, which was allowed by way of judgment dated 25.02.2019. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted an application dated 18.02.2019 with a prayer to revoke the order of dismissal and to extend the benefit of salary and pension as he had attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2018. Due to delay in adjudication of his representation, the Petitioner preferred OA bearing no. 45/2020, which was disposed of with a direction to pass a speaking order. By way of order dated 07.07.2021, the Petitioner’s dismissal was set aside and he was reinstated in service by the Competent Authority. It was found that the Petitioner was entitled to subsistence allowance for the period of suspension, however, he was not entitled to back wages. By way of the said order, the Petitioner was also asked to submit a representation regarding entitlement of pay and admissible allowances for the period of suspension and dismissal, which was to be treated as period not spent on duty.

4. Following the same, the Petitioner preferred a detailed representation in this respect on 05.08.2021. Being aggrieved by the same not being considered, the Petitioner filed OA No. 290/2022, which was disposed of with directions to pass a speaking order. In compliance thereof, by way of order dated 24.03.2022, the Competent Authority ordered as under:

“i) For the period of suspension w.e.f. 24.11.2010 to 20.05.2014, the said Shri Suram Pal Singh shall be entitled for pay and admissible allowance equal to subsistence allowance, subject to adjustment of the amount of subsistence allowance already paid to him for the period of suspension.

ii) The said Shri Suram Pal Singh shall not be entitled for any back-wages/ arrears of the pay for the period of dismissal w.e.f. 21.05.2014 to 30.04.2018 i.e. date on which he attained age of superannuation.

iii) The period from 24.11.2010 to 30.04.2018 in respect of the said Shri Suram Pal Singh shall be counted for pensionary purposes only.”

5. The said order was upheld by the learned Tribunal by way of the impugned order.

6. It is the case of the Petitioner that once the order of his dismissal from service is set aside, it is not proper to hold that the Petitioner was