GAHC010292852019

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/8944/2019

CONSTABLE G.D. BIKASH CHANDRA NATH

FORCE NO. 031527768, S/O- SISIR NATH, R/O- SULIAKATA, KUMURIA,

SORBHOG, BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781317

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA 4 ORS

REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 110001

2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

CRPF

CENTRAL GOVT OFFICE COMPLEX

NEW DELHI- 110003

3:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

RANGE

CRPF

RANCHI

JHARKHAND

PIN- 834004

4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

GROUP CENTRE

CRPF

GUWAHATI

KAMRUP

ASSAM

PIN- 781023

5:COMMANDANT

84 BN

CRPF AT LOCATION (TO BE SERVED THROUGH THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR

GENERAL OF POLICE

RANGE CRPF RANCHI JHARKHAND PIN- 83400 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R MAZUMDAR, MRS P RAI,MR H BEZBARUA,MR. U SARMA,MS. P K DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MR. S S ROY B E F O R E –

–

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. D. Gogoi Advocate Advocate for the respondents : Mr. S.S. Roy CGC Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment : 18.12.2025 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : No.

Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S.

Roy, learned CGC for the respondents.

2) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.06.2017, which was issued by the Director General of Central Reserve Police Force reinstating the writ petitioner in service as Constable (GD) subject to the outcome of writ appeal being WA No. 280 of 2016 (which was pending at the relevant point of time). By the said order, the petitioner was reinstated in service in terms of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in WP(C) No.451 of 2010 and it was further held that he is not entitled to back wages and the intervening period that is, the date of removal from service till reinstatement is treated as period “not spent on duty”, which however, is condoned for the purpose of pension under Rule 25 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. While the petitioner was serving as Constable (GD), there was a departmental proceeding initiated against the writ petitioner, pursuant to which he was dismissed from service. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being No.451/2010, challenging the order of dismissal. The writ petition came to be allowed by directing the petitioner to be reinstated in service, but without any back wages.

3) The Union being aggrieved by the appeal preferred a Writ Appeal being WA No.280 of 2016. Although, the appeal was admitted, but no interim order was issued. Being aggrieved the Union carried the matter to the Apex Court but there was no interim order granted for stay of the judgment. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition filed by the Union was dismissed, giving liberty to the Union to approach the High Court to produce the relevant reports and seek modifications of the impugned order.

4) The contempt petition which was filed by the present writ petitioner for non-compliance of the directions contained in the order dated 10.04.2015 passed in WP(C) No.451/2010, which was also filed by the writ petitioner. The Apex Court declined to accept the submission of the Union that the contempt proceedings should be stayed. Thereafter, by order dated 16.06.2017, which is impugned in the present writ petition, the respondent authorities passed the order of reinstating the writ petitioner in terms of the order judgment and order dated 10.04.2015 passed in WP(C) No.451/2010. However, it was ordered that the intervening period that is the date of removal from service till reinstatement was to be treated as period “period not spent on duty”, which period, however, was to be covered for the purposes of pension. Subsequently, the writ appeal being WA No.280 of 2016 came to be dismissed and the judgment and order of the S