High Court · 2025

Mr. Sahil Mullick, learned counsel for t he appellant .

2. Ms. Puj a Banga, learned Brief Holder for t he St at e of Ut t arakhand t hrough video conferencing.

3. This int ra- Court Appeal is direct ed against j udgm ent and order dat ed 22.06.2018, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Pet it ion ( S/ S) No. 651 of 2008. By t he said j udgm ent , Writ Pet it ion filed by t he w rit pet it ioner ( appellant herein) , challenging t he orders dat ed 03.06.1995 and 28.06.1995, was allow ed, and t he Aut horit ies w ere direct ed t o pay full salary t o t he pet it ioner for t he period of suspension and dism issal, aft er adj ust ing t he am ount already paid t o him .

4. The operat ive port ion of t he im pugned j udgm ent is ext ract ed below : “ 8. From t he perusal of t he j udgm ent s passed by t he Tribunal in t he case of K.G. Dwivedi and Adya Pr asad Mishra, it is evident ly clear t hat in t he case of Adya Prasad Mishra, t here was direct ion by t he Tribunal t o pay full salary t o t he pet it ioner for t he suspension period whereas in t he case of K.G. Dw ivedi, t here was no such direct ion by t he Tribunal, however , Shri K.G. Dwivedi was also paid full arrears of salary for t he period of his suspension and dism issal. 9. I n t he count er affidavit , respondent s have not denied t he fact t hat t hey have not given arrears of salary t o K.G. Dw ivedi for t he suspension and dism issal period, t herefore, t he act ion of t he respondent s in denying t he sam e benefit s t o t he pet it ioner, is t he principle of parit y, illegal and arbit rary. Considering pet it ioner is also ent it led t o get full salary. 10. Accordingly, writ pet it ion is allowed. I m pugned orders are quashed. Respondent s ar e direct ed t o pay full salary t o t he pet it ioner for t he period of suspension and dism issal, aft er t o him . That apart , adj ust ing respondent s are direct ed t o pay cost s of Rs. 10,000/ - t o t he pet it ioner for com pelling him in an unwarrant ed lit igat ion.” t he am ount already paid

5. From a perusal of t he im pugned j udgm ent , it is apparent t hat t he order of punishm ent , as w ell as t he order of dism issal from service, passed against t he w rit pet it ioner, w ere set aside by learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge also direct ed t o pay full salary t o t he w rit pet it ioner for t he period he rem ained under suspension, and, t hereaft er, he rem ained out of em ploym ent on account of punishm ent of dism issal im posed upon him .

6. The order, w hereby, w rit pet it ioner was dism issed from service, was set aside by learned Single Judge, t herefore, t he direct ion was issued t o pay him arrears of salary also. Since, t he arrears of salary was cont ingent upon decision in t he Writ Pet it ion, and in t he absence of a favourable decision in t he Writ Pet it ion, pet it ioner w ould not have been ent it led t o salary for t he period he rem ained out of em ploym ent , post dism issal. Thus, it cannot be said t hat t here was delay in paym ent of arrears of salary. I nt erest w ould be payable only when t here is deliberat e delay in paym ent of am ount due t o an em ployee. Since, t his is not t he case here, t herefore, w rit pet it ioner ’s claim for int erest , as st aked by him , in t his Appeal, is not sust ainable. Therefore, t here is no scope for int erference.

7. I n such view of t he m at t er, t he Special Appeal fails and is, hereby, dism issed. (A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J.) (M a n o j Ku m a r Ti w a r i , J.) Shik sha

05.05.2025 SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5 DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA