Abdul Naseem v. Union Of India And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...

WP.CT/4/2022 IA No:CAN/1/2022 Abdul Naseem ... petitioner Vs.

Union of India and others ... Respondents Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Ramendu Agarwal ... for the respondents July 22, 2022 [SR] Item No.4 The limited grievance of the petitioner is that the Tribunal merely directed the respondents in the petitioner's original application, without waiting for any representation from the applicant against the leave due after consulting leave account of the applicant, and appropriate orders to be issued immediately and to decide on the payable salary in regard to the said intervening period which shall be paid by four weeks. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent authorities that the said direction has been complied with to the letter.

However, upon perusal of the materials annexed to the writ petition, it is evident from the order dated January 30, 2019 passed by the Tribunal, as annexed at pages 41 and 42 that the Tribunal had opined in connection with the contempt application

taken out by the petitioner that the status quo granted earlier by the Single Bench would be maintained and that the Single Bench had interpreted the status quo to be continuation of the applicant in his duty to the post of Assistant-in-charge of State Library, Port Blair.

In view of such specific interpretation, which was never challenged by the respondent authorities and has attained finality, there is no scope of doubt that the period during which the petitioner was not permitted to work was to be included for the purpose of calculating the remuneration of the petitioner. We are informed that, in the meantime, the petitioner has retired from service on February 28, 2022.

Hence, WP.CT/4/202 is disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to disburse the arrear salary of the petitioner in its entirety, including the period, that is, from July 13, 2018 to February 28, 2019, for which the petitioner was resisted from joining work, by treating the same to be work-days for the purpose of calculating the petitioner's due salary and retiral benefits. It is made clear that the respondents shall not treat the said interregnum, during which the petitioner was resisted from appearing for work, as leave taken by the petitioner in any form whatsoever. The respondent shall disburse such salary, as directed above, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three weeks from date. No order as to costs. The

connected application, being CAN/1/2022 is disposed of accordingly.

It is further clarified that any action taken, contrary to the above direction, shall automatically deem to be stand cancelled and recalled.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties upon compliance of usual formalities. ( Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. ) ( Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. )