AM Petitier Angad Ram Dhruv Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others Post for ORDER on /8§ugust, 08. 7 20 Sd/- Sah K Agnitrif udge ’€§i __A¥uust,2b08 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR _v. P. No. 3934 of 2004 v on tis . ho J HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. No. 3984 of 2004 the Superintendent of Police, Jagdalpur, Dist: Bastar (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Shri J. S. P. Chandrasen, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P. K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on this /8%ay of August, 2008) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a relief of grant of salary for the period from-2.2.1999 till the date ofjoining i.e. 15.12.2001, on account of delay in communication of the order dated 2.2.1999, whereby the order of removal from service was set-aside and the petitioner was granted reinstatement vide order dated 2.2.1999 (Annexure R/1). - . The brief facts, necessary for this case are that the petitioner was \\. appointed on the post of Constable. The petitioner was removed \ \.\ \ Petitioner Angad Ram Dhruv, S/o Shri Udho Singh Thakur, Aged about 40 years, R/o Village Santara, Tahsil Saja, Dist: Durg (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary Department of Home Ministry D.K.S. Bhawan. 2. The Director General of Police Raipur, Distt: Raipug (C.G.) 3. The Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarter Raipur. 4. Superintendent of Police, Office of from service by the respondent No.4 on 28.3.1995 (Annexure P12). The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Baster, was dismissed by the appellate authority on 18.12.1997 (Annexure P/3). Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a mercy petition before the Director General of Police, Bhopal. The Director General 0f Police, Bhopal, the then State of Madhya Pradesh, vide order dated 2.2.1999 (Annexure R/1) modified the order of removal dated 28.3.1995, passed by the respondent No.4 (Superintendent of Police), subsequently confirmed vide order dated 18.12.1997, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, to withholding of one increment, with cumulative effect, for one year. It was further ordered that the petitioner would not be entitled to salary for the period he was out of the office on the basis of the principle of ‘no work, no pay’. . The order dated 2.2.1999 was communicated to the petitioner on 26‘“ November, 2001 after a lapse of two years and 11 months. Thus, the petitioner was denied the benefit of service from 2.2.1999 till 26m November, 2001 on account of no fault on his part. On receiving the order in the month of November, 2001 the petitioner joined the service on 10.12.2001. The petitioner claims salary for the period 2.2.1999 to‘. 10.12.2001 as the communication of the order dated 2.2.1999 was unnecessarily delayed by two years and eleven months. 4. Shri J. S. P. Chandrasen, learned counsel appearing for the, petitioner would submit that the reasonable time’ in communication of the order dated 2.2.1999, passed by the \ Director General of Police, was possible but delay of two years \ \ \ / \ and eleven months has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner as the petitioner remained out of the service without any reason, on account of delay in communication of the order. . Per contra, Shri P. K. Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would make very unusual submission that this was for the petitioner to take steps to obtain order as early as possible. The respondents cannot be blamed for communication of the order with the delay of two years and eleven months. He further submits that since the petitioner has not taken any steps to obtain the order, as early as possible. the respondents cannot be faulted with for thisrdelay of the communication of the order. On query, asto whether there is any circular or provisions of law stating that the employee has to approach the authority, wherein ‘ the appeal/mercy petition is pending consideration, to obtain orders. Learned counsel admits that there is no such provision and the order is always Communicated to the concerned employee. . Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the records appended thereto, it is evident that the petitioner cannot be faulted with for not approaching the authority regularly, in order to know the orders passed thereon. Once the appeal/mercy petition is filed, normally the employee does not meet the officer without any intimation or requirement by the officers, dealing with the appeal/mercy petition. Therefore, the contention -of' learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has failed to take steps to obtain the order, is frivolous and without any basis. All the orders in case of appeal/mercy \ \ \ . \ \ Thakur petition, as admitted, are communicated after decision is taken thereon. in view of the admitted facts that the petitioner, even after order dated 2.2.1999, whereby the orderof removai was set—aside and penaity of withholding one year’s increment with cumulative effect was imposed, was unnecessarily kept out of the job, for no fault on his part. He is, accordingly, entitled to the benefit of service for such period. . In normal course, the communication may take two — three months, thereafter, some time is taken in joining the service. Thus, deducting four months from the delayed period, the petitioner is entitled to consequential benefits of salary and other admissible allowances for a period of two years and seven months, as the delay was caused by the respondents/authorities and the same has prejudiced the case of the petitioner. ln view of the foregoing, the petition stands allowed to the above extent. The petitioner is entitled to grant of salary and other admissible allowances for the period of two years and seven months. The respondents/authorities shall take steps to give benefit of the above stated relief to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order asto costs. " Sdl- sau'sh K AgnihOt'is' Judge