SCA/1241/2006 1/2 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1241 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA ========================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================== SAMARSINGH M CHAUHAN Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ========================================== Appearance : SUNITA S CHATURVEDI for the Petitioner MR SN SINHA for the Respondents ========================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 11/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA) 1. Learned counsel Ms. Sunita Chaturvedi, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that impugned order dated 11/14.2.2005 allowing 50% of the pay, which had been admissible to the petitioner for a period of three years immediately preceding the date of the order of this Court in SCA/1241/2006 2/2 JUDGMENT Special Civil Application No.8939 of 1999, was ex-facie contrary to the provisions of sub rule (3) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code: 1344 (Fundamental Rule 54A). It was submitted by her that the petitioner was entitled to full wages for the period from the date of his removal from service till the date he was reinstated in service on 25.3.2004. 2. There was no dispute about the facts of the order of the petitioner's removal from service, which was set aside by this Court by order dated 9.10.2003 in Special Civil Application No.8939 of 1999, and the applicability of the aforesaid FR 54A. Under the circumstances, learned counsel Mr. S.N. Sinha, appearing for the respondents, could not contest the claim on merit and only submitted that the formal reply already filed in the office on behalf of the respondents was not relied upon. Having regard to the express provisions of IREC 1344 (FR 54A), the petition has to be allowed and, accordingly, it is allowed with the direction that the impugned direction for payment of 50% of the pay, as contained in the impugned order dated 11/14.2.2005, shall stand substituted by the direction that the petitioner is entitled to full pay for the period between his removal from and reinstatement in service. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to cost. It is clarified that the petitioner shall also be entitled to consequential benefits flowing from the order dated 6.12.2005, which is at Annexure-'I' to the petition. (BHAGWATI PRASAD, J.) omkar (D.H.WAGHELA, J.)