1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 15063 of 2008. Decided on: 21.6.2011 Bega Nand ….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others. ....Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner was put under suspension on 11th September, 1998. However, on the basis of the preliminary inquiry conducted by the respondent-department, petitioner was reinstated on 23rd June, 1999. However, his salary for the period w.e.f. 1st November, 1998 to 23rd June, 1999 has not been paid to him. In fact, once the respondent-department had decided to revoke the suspension of the petitioner by reinstating him on 23rd June, 1999, necessary orders were required to be passed as per the provisions of Chapter VI, Instruction No. (3) contained in Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?. No 2 petitioner for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement or whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. The only explanation given in the reply filed by the respondent-department is that since the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and the same have not been concluded due to the the stay obtained by a colleague of the petitioner, namely Hardeep Singh in O.A. No. 1504 of 2001, titled as Hardeep Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh, from the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, the salary of the petitioner could not be released to him for the period w.e.f. 1st November, 1998 to 23rd June, 1999. This action on the part of the respondent-department is wholly erroneous. 2. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that the respondent-department now be permitted to comply with the provisions of Chapter VI, Instruction No. (3) contained in Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. This prayer has been made at a very belated stage. The Court cannot permit the respondent-department to comply with the provisions of the aforesaid Rule after eleven years. Moreover, petitioner has retired from the service on 31st August, 2006. 3 3. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-department to pay the salary to the petitioner w.e.f. 1st November, 1998 to 23rd June, 1999 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, within a period of eight weeks, after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. Copy dasti on usual terms. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge June 21, 2011. (hl)