Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Anr v. Amandeep Singh Deceased and Others

LAPITA BANERJI, J.(ORAL)

Under challenge in the present RSA is the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra dated December 01, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned judgment), whereby the learned Additional District Judge had partly allowed the appeal and granted the following reliefs to the heirs of the deceased employee/plaintiff:- st(i) arrears of salary and all his regular annual increments, 1 ACP Scale/pay band of Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of 3200/- w.e.f.

01.04.2010 admissible as per rules;

(ii) fixation of pay properly on 01.01.2006 after grant of annual increment in existing old pay scale with next date of increment as

01.07 along

(iii) the " to 10 purpo

(iv) paym incre pay a date heirs

2.

Th

(i) The h Corpora was susp involvem Code. T filing a Rules. T punishm of all the 2009 pa employe immedia

(ii) V Engineer

7.2006 and release of all his ar g with interest from the date of rei "suspension period" of the appell

0.12.2009 to be treated as "dut oses with all legal and consequent ment of his entire arrears of sala ements, 1st ACP Scale, cited abov accruing thereto along with intere of reinstatement of the appellan . he brief facts leading to the presen husband of respondent No.1 was tion as a Lower Division Clerk ( pended from service on April 1 ment in a criminal case under Se The departmental proceedings we charge-sheet under Section 7 o The departmental proceedings w ment of censure' on May 10, 2011 e criminal charges against him vi ssed by the learned Sessions Jud ee was reinstated in service o ate effect. Vide an order dated September r-defendant No.2 in the suit, direc rrears of pay accruing thereto instatement till payment; lant-plaintiff w.e.f. 10.04.2007 ty period" for all intents and tial benefits and ary and all his regular annual ve and release of his arrears of est @ 6% per annum from the nt-plaintiff till payment to his nt appeal are as follows:-s employed with the appellant-

(LDC) on March 10, 2000. He 10, 2007 due to his purported ection 302 of the Indian Penal ere conducted against him by of the Punishment and Appeal were culminated into 'a minor

¶1The appellant was acquitted ide a judgment dated April 06, ge, Kurukshetra. The plaintiff-on December 10, 2009 with 30, 2011, the Superintending

of the p 2009 to further w amount o

(iii) Th for the s regulariz incremen

(iv) A treating cryptic a Superint

(v) The was not the plain taken by of kind d

(vi) The 2016. D plaintiff substitut

(vii) U Kuruksh the relie

plaintiff-employee between April be treated as "leave of kind d was required to be paid to the pla of suspension allowance. he plaintiff-employee claimed tha said period along with all consequ zation of the suspension period nt by treating the suspension perio According to the plaintiff-employe the period of suspension as perio and non-speaking order dated S tending Engineer. Trial Court on August 26, 2016 h entitled to relief claimed by him ntiff-employee, holding that alre y the employer by regularizing hi due". first appeal was filed by the plai During the pendency of the appea f passed away and his widow ted as heirs/legal representatives. Upon hearing the appeal, the hetra vide the impugned order dat fs mentioned hereinabove. l 10, 2007 and December 10, due". It was held that nothing aintiff-employee more than the at he was entitled to full salary uential benefits. He prayed for d for the purpose of annual od as period "on duty". ee, his prayer for regularization od "on duty" was rejected by a eptember 30, 2012, issued by held that the plaintiff-employee m and dismissed the suit against eady a lenient view had been is suspension period as "leave intiff-employee on October 10, al, unfortunately the appellant-w and minor children were

e Additional District Judge, ted December 01, 2021 granted o o RSA-1597-2022o o

3.o o TheopresentoRSAoarisesooutoofotheosaidoimpugnedoorderodatedo Decembero01,o2021.ooooo

4.o o Learnedocounseloappearingoonobehalfoofotheoappellantsosubmitsothato byoanoimpugnedoorderodatedoDecembero01,o2021,otheolearnedoAdditionaloDistricto Judge,o Kurukshetrao erredo ino settingo asideo theo ordero passedo byo theo learnedo AdditionaloCiviloJudge,o(SenioroDivision),oKurukshetraodatedoAugusto26,o2016.oo

5.o o Theo trialo Judgeo correctlyo heldo thato sinceo theo plaintiffo absentedo himselfofromodutyowithoutointimationotootheodefendantoasoheowasoinocustodyobeingo involvedo ino ao criminalo mattero whicho waso unconnectedo witho theo employer,o theo plaintiff-employeeowasonotoentitledotootheopaymentoofohisoentireosalaryoduringotheo periodoofosuspension.oTheotrialoJudgeocorrectlyoheldothatotheodefendants-appellantso hadotakenoaolenientoviewobyoawardingoaopunishmentoofo"censure."oTheosaidoperiodo ofosuspensionowasotreatedoaso"leaveoofotheokindodue"obutowasonototreatedoaso"dutyo period".oTherefore,otheoplaintiffowasounableotooshowothatoprejudiceowasocausedotoo himobyoanyoactooroconductoofotheodefendantsoasotheoFIRowasounconnectedowithoanyo actoonotheopartoofotheoemployer.oTheolearnedotrialoJudgeohadocorrectlyodismissedo theosuit.oo

6.o o VideotheoimpugnedoorderotheoFirstoAppellateoCourtorecordedothatoano FIRounderoSectionso302oando323oreadowithoSectiono34oofoIPCowasolodgedoagainsto theoemployeeoonoFebruaryo16,o2007.oHeowasosuspendedofromoserviceovideoordero datedo Aprilo 10,o 2007.o Heo waso acquittedo byo theo learnedo Sessionso Judge,o Kurukshetraovideojudgmentoandoanoorderodatedo Aprilo6,o2009.oTheoemployee-plaintiffowasoreinstatedovideoorderodatedoDecembero10,o2009.oTherefore,otheoFirsto Appellateo Courto waso ofo theo viewo thato theo suspensiono periodo ofo theo employeeo duringotheopendencyoofoaocriminalocaseowhichoultimatelyoresultedoinoanoacquittalo shouldobeodeemedotoobeo"dutyoperiod"oforoallointentsoandopurposes.oItoheldothatotheo PRINCEgSAINI 2025.01.24g16:47 Igattestgtogthegaccuracygand authenticitygofgthis o o RSA-1597-2022o o

plaintiffowasoentitledotoofullosalaryoduringotheosuspensionoperiod.oTheotrialoCourto hado committedo ano erroro ino dismissingo theo suito ofo theo appellant-plaintiff.o Heo directedotheobalanceoamountoofosalaryotoobeopaidoalongowithointeresto@o6%opero annum.oo

7.o o Learnedocounseloappearingoonobehalfoofotheoappellantsosubmitsothato theoFirstoAppellateoCourtoerredoinoallowingotheoappealowhileodirectingoreleaseoofo theoarrearsoofotheoemployeeoalongowithointeresto@o6%operoannumofromotheodateoofo reinstatementoofotheoappellant-plaintiffotillopayment.oo

8.o o Learnedocounseloappearingoonobehalfoofotheorespondentsodrawsotheo attentionoofothisoCourtotooaoDivisionoBenchojudgmentoofothisoHon'bleoCourtodatedo Decembero19,o1991opassedoinoCWPoNo.2453oofo1991o"Y.P.oSehgaloversusoStateo ofoPunjab",owhereinoitohasobeenonotedothatoitoisosettledoruleoofolawothatowhenoano employeeo iso disallowedo theo arrearso ofo salaryo ando allowanceso ando heo iso paido nothingobeyondotheosubsistenceoallowance,oanoopportunityoofohearingobyoissuingoao noticeo too himo haso too beo granted.o Unlesso sucho ano opportunityo iso granted,o theo impugnedo ordero wouldo beo whollyo arbitraryo ando violativeo ofo theo principleso ofo naturalojustice.oHeothenodrawsotheoattentionoofothisoCourtovideoofficeoOrderoNo.478o datedoSeptembero30,o2012owherebyotheosuspensionoperiodoofotheoofficialowasoheldo toobeoregularizedoasotheo"leaveoofookindodue"oimplyingonoofurtheropaymentoaparto fromosubsistenceoallowanceowasodirectedotoobeomadeotootheoofficial.o

9.o o OnoJanuaryo14,o2025owhenothisoCourtowasohearingotheoappeal,oito hadograntedotimeotootheoappellants-Corporationotooproduceotheorecordsotooshowo thatowhileopassingotheocrypticoorderodatedoSeptembero30,o2012,oanoopportunityo ofohearingowasogivenotootheoplaintiff-employee.oo

10.o o Today,o certaino documentso regardingo theo departmentalo proceedingsohaveobeenohandedo overo too thiso Court.o Theo saidodocumentsoareo PRINCEgSAINI 2025.01.24g16:47 Igattestgtogthegaccuracygand authenticitygofgthis

taken on recor deceased-empl pressing domes lenient view to

11.

L judgment of th of Reserve Ba

03.11.1993. He absent for the discharge his d whole salary an reliance is pla Chaterji Tha Board, Himm

603.

12.

L deceased empl proposition bu disallowing th allowance, gav

13.

Th conducting the awarding a pun

14.

Th proceedings is

rd. From a perusal of the said d oyee himself admitted to the non-stic issues leading to severe men be taken in the departmental proc earned counsel appearing on beha e Supreme Court in Civil Appeal ank of India, Delhi Vs. Bhopa e contended that the Apex Court reasons of his own involveme duties, the bank could not be sad nd allowances for the period unde aced on the judgment of the Su akore Vs. Superintendent En matnagar (Gujarat) and anothe earned counsel for the contest loyee contended that there is no ut the question here is whether th he arrears of salary and allowa ve an opportunity of hearing to the here is no doubt in the mind o e departmental proceedings, the nishment of "censure" against the he legal issue that requires to whether before arriving at a find documents, it appears that the -attendance of his duties due to ntal strain. He had prayed for a ceedings. alf of the appellants relied on a No.554 of 1986 Management al Singh Panchal decided on has held that if an employee is nt in an offence and did not ddled with liability to pay his er suspension. Furthermore, the upreme Court in Ranchhodji ngineer, Gujarat Electricity er, reported in 1996(11) SCC ting respondents/heirs of the doubt with regard to the legal he competent authority before ances beyond the subsistence e delinquent employee. of this Court that after fairly e lenient view was taken by e delinquent employee. be determined in the present

is to be regular eligible to paym had to mandato

15.

Th by a Division District Judge, the delinquent and had to be p of hearing by brought on rec employee befo Court upholds Kurukshetra an arbitrary and Additional Dis order dated Sep

16.

C Executing Cou accordance wit

17.

C

JANUARY 22 Prince Whether speak Whether report

rized as "leave of kind due" ther ments over and above the subsist orily grant the delinquent employe his Court is in agreement with th Bench of this Court in Y.P. Se Kurukshetra correctly came to th employee was disallowed the ar paid nothing beyond the subsiste issuing of a notice had to be gr cord to show that an opportunity ore passing the impugned order d the decision passed by the learn nd holds that the impugned actio violative of principles of natur strict Judge, Kurukshetra had co ptember 30, 2012. Consequently, RSA-1597-2022 urt is free to proceed with th th law. Connected application(s), if any, sh

2, 2025 king/reasoned :

table :

reby making the employee not ence allowance, the authorities ee an opportunity of hearing. he view of the judgment passed ehgal (supra). The Additional he conclusion that in the event rrears of salary and allowances ence allowance, an opportunity anted. Since nothing has been of hearing was granted to the dated September 30, 2012, this ned Additional District Judge, on of the appellant was wholly ral justice. Therefore, learned orrectly quashed the impugned is dismissed. The learned he execution proceedings in hall also stand disposed of. (LAPITA BANERJI)

JUDGE

RSA-1597-2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1597-2022 DATE OF DECISION : JANUARY 22, 2025 UTTARoHARYANAoBIJLIoVITRANoNIGAMoLTD.oANDoANR …APPELLANTS Versus AMANDEEPoSINGHoDECEASEDoTHROUGHoLRSoANDoOTHERS …RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Jayant Puneet Bamal, Advocate for Mr. Harmanjot Singh Gill, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocate for the respondents.