IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13900 of 2003 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT, THRU THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, NALANDA, BIHAR SHARIF. 3. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA WRONGLY DESCRIBED AS POST MASTER GENERAL, BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA IN C.C. OF CAT JUDGMENT. Versus 1. THE CENTRAL ADMINIS.TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH PATNA. THRU THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH, PATNA ………RESPONDENT 1ST PARTY. 2. RAM NANDAN SINGH @ CHOTE SINGH, S/O LATE KARU SINGH, VILLAGE-MASATHU, P.S.BELCHHI, DIST-PATNA AT PRESENT POSTED AS EXTRA DEPARTMENTAL BRANCH POST MASTER OF MASATHU BRANCH OFFICE IN DISTT-PATNA…..RESPONDENT 2ND PARTY. For petitioners (Union of India):- Mr. Binay Kr. Pandey,CGC. For Respondent No.2:- Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Uma Shankar, Adv. ----------- 07/ 11-Oct-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for Respondent No.2 who was the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No.509/2000 which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 7th August 2003 contained in Annexure-4. 2. The relevant facts are not in dispute. The Respondent No.2/applicant was holding the post of Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster when he was taken into 2 custody on 08.09.1987 in connection with a criminal case under Section 302 and other Sections of the IPC. He was released on bail on 20th January 1988 and from that date he was put off duty. 3. Pursuant to his acquittal in the criminal case on 12.06.1996, the applicant prayed for revocation of the order putting him off duty on 12.07.1996. The authorities revoked the order on 09.01.1997. 4. Before the learned Tribunal the applicant prayed for his salary and allowances for the period he was put off duty, which has been described by the Tribunal as suspension, approximately from September 1987 to February 1997. The learned Tribunal noticed a relevant amendment particularly in Clause-3 of Rule 9 of the Post and Telegraph ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, which had been enforced from 13-01-1997. The learned Tribunal found that the salary and allowances for the period in question when the applicant was put off duty could not be withheld and allowed the prayer of the applicant. That order of the Tribunal is under challenge. 5. The only point raised on behalf of the petitioners is that since the amendment in Rule 9 came 3 into force with effect from 13.01.1997, benefit of such amendment could not have been give to the applicant (Respondent No.2 herein) for payment of salary and allowance for the period prior to 13.01.1997. 6. We have considered the contents of Annexure-3 through which the postal authorities circulated the amendment in Rule-9 giving the background of a Supreme Court Judgment dated 10.07.1995 passed in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 90CC457 and some other judgments of the Supreme Court. From the facts mentioned in Annexure-3 it is clear that the earlier Rule 9 (3) of the Rules which deprived an employee of salary and allowances for the period he was put off duty was found to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was in the light of observations by the Apex Court that the amended rule was enforced. 7. In such a situation, in our considered view the law requiring fair action which is now reflected by the Rules has to be applied in the case of the Respondent No.2 also although he was put off duty much earlier in 1988. Accordingly, we find that Respondent No.2 is entitled for salary and allowances for the period after 20th January 4 1988 when he was put off duty pursuant to release on bail till revocation of the order putting him off duty on 09.01.1997. To that extent the order or the learned Tribunal requires no interference. 8. In our view the amended Rule 9(3) of the Rules lays down a fair procedure shall govern the case of the Respondent No.2 also so far as the period between 08.09.1987 and 01.01.1988 and also the later period between 09.01.1997 and 04.02.1997 are concerned. For that period whether the Respondent No.2 can be deprived of his salary and allowances must be decided by the petitioners afresh by giving opportunity of hearing or making a representation and then passing a cogent reasoned order. With this liberty and modification in the order of the learned Tribunal, this writ petition is disposed of. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. perwez ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)