# No. 1347 (SS) of 2006 ( Brij Nath Ram v. State of U.P. and others), disposed of

- **Citation:** (2013) 1 ILRA 339
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-03-13
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 1941 of 2000
- **Bench:** Anil Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/no-1347-ss-of-2006-brij-nath-ram-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-disposed-of-42506
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Financial Rules (financial Hand Book
Vol. II Part 2 to 4- Full salary during
suspension period-after reinstatementpetitioner a police constable placed
under
suspension
on
21.12.2000reinstated on 17.11.2001-till death no
disciplinary proceeding initiated-entitled
for full salary during suspension periodorder impugned giving only subsistence
allowance-quashed.

## Text

1 All] Smt. Asha Devi Vs. State of U.P.
339

7. However, so far as, question of
salary is concerned, since, the claimantrespondent had not discharged duty, he
seems to be not entitled for payment of
arrears of salary for the period when
respondent had not discharged duties.

8. Shri Ram Lagan Mishra learned
counsel for the respondent submits that
claimant was restored in service in
pursuance the judgement of tribunal and
continued in service up to till the age of
superannuation i.e. on 30.11.2007.

9. The impugned order dated
28.8.2000 is liable to be modified and is
modified to the extent that the claimantrespondent is not entitled for arrears of
salary for the period when he was not in
job but for all other purposes, the claimant
respondent shall deem to be in service and
post retiral dues shall be assessed in
accordance to rules. Tribunal's order
stands modified accordingly.

10..Writ
petition
disposed
of
accordingly.
---------
 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.03.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR,J.

Service Single No. 1941 of 2000

Smt. Asha Devi

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri B.R. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
U.P. Financial Rules (financial Hand Book
Vol. II Part 2 to 4- Full salary during
suspension period-after reinstatementpetitioner a police constable placed
under
suspension
on
21.12.2000reinstated on 17.11.2001-till death no
disciplinary proceeding initiated-entitled
for full salary during suspension periodorder impugned giving only subsistence
allowance-quashed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar, J)

1. Heard Sri B.R. Singh, learned
counsel for petitioner, learned State
counsel and perused the record.

2. Facts of the present case are that
initially one Sri Brij Nath Ram working
on the post of Head Constable while he
was posted at Police Station Kamlapur,
District Sitapur, an FIR has been lodged
in respect to the incidence under Section
323/224 IPC and Section 29 of the Police
Act on the ground that one Sri Tahsildar
Singh, accused in a Gangster Act has run
away from the police custody.

3. Subsequently, in the said
incidence, the petitioner was placed under
suspension by order dated 21.12.2000,
revoked by order dated 12.11.2001 passed
by Superintendent of Police, Sitapur. In
the said matter, he filed a Writ Petition
No. 1347 (SS) of 2006 ( Brij Nath Ram
Vs. State of U.P. and others), disposed of
by means of the order dated 17.04.2006,
relevant portion quoted as under:-

"Heard Sri Sajiv Pandey, holding
brief of Sri S.P. Tripathi, learned counsel
for the petitioner and the learned
Standing Counsel.

The grievance of the petitioner is that
vide order dated 21.12.2000 he was
340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
placed under suspension under Rule
17(1)(a) of U.P. Subordinate Police
Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,
1991 and for administrative purposes was
attached at the police line. Subsequently
on 17.11.2001 he was reinstate and vide
order 7.5.2002 he was transferred from
Sitapur to Ambedkar Nagar. In pursuant
thereto he joined at Ambedkar Nagar. In
the order of reinstatement it is mentioned
that the order of revocation of suspension
shall not prejudice the enquiry likely to be
initiated against the petitioner. It is stated
that no charge sheet has been issued to
the petitioner and no disciplinary enquiry
has been conducted till date. It is further
submitted that ins spite of several
representations made before respondent
NO. 3, copies whereof have been filed as
Annexure Nos. 6 and 7 to the writ petition
neither full salary of the period of
suspension has been paid, nor any other
benefits i.e. Promotional pay scale have
been allowed to him.

The
learned
Standing
counsel
submits that responden5t NO. 3 shall look
into the grievance of the petitioner and
representation of the petitioner, if any,
pending before him, shall be considered
and decided in accordance with law
expeditiously.

Looking to the facts and circumstances,
the writ petition is finally disposed of with a
direction to respondent No. 3 to consider and
decide the petitioner's representations dated
25.11.2005 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition)
and dated 25.1.2006 (Annexure-7 to the writ
petition) by a speaking order within a period
of six weeks form the date of production of a
certified copy of this order alongwith copies
of the aforesaid representations. The
petitioner is at liberty to file a further detail
representation alongwith certified copy of
this order. In case the petitioner is found
entitled to get any amount, the respondents
shall take steps for payment of such amount
within two months thereafter."

4. In pursuance to the same, the
impugned order dated 28.05.2008 has
been passed by Superintendent of Police,
operative portion quoted as under:-

"करण म मु य आरी बृजनाथ को
जांचोपरांत दोषी पाया गया तथा घटना से
स बंिधत पंजीकृत उ$ अिभयोग अभी
'वचाराधीन है । ऐसी प-र./थित म मु य
आरी बृजनाथ राम क0 इनक0 िनलंबन
अविध 3दनाँक २१.१२.२००० से ११.११.२००१
तक क0 अविध म 3दए गए जीवन िनवा9ह
भ:े के अित-र$ कोई अवशेष वेतन, भ:े
आ3द नह=ं होगी । िनलंबन अविध क0
गणना पशन, पदो.>नित एवं अवकाश आ3द
म क0 जाएगी ।"

5. Aggrieved by the said order, Sri
Brij Nath Ram has filed the present writ
petition before this Court. During the
pendency of the present case, he died and
substituted by hi legal representative/Smt.
Asha Devi as petitioner No. 1/1.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner
while assailing the impugned order
submits that in which FIR was lodged
which is the basis of placing the petitioner
under suspension neither in the said FIR
nor
in
the
chargesheet
submitted,
thereafter petitioner's name find place.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner
further submits that till the petitioner was
1 All] Smt. Karmaita Vs. The Tehsildar and another
341
alive, no disciplinary proceedings has
been initiated against him in the incidence
in question in which he has been placed
under suspension, so keeping in view the
said fact, the action on the part of
opposite parties thereby not giving the
salary excluding subsistence allowance to
the petitioner for the period 21.12.2000 to
12.11.2001 and the impugned order dated
28.05.2008 is an exercise which is
arbitrary in nature, liable to be set aside.

8. I have heard learned counsel for
parties and perused the record.

9. As per admitted facts of the case
are that the petitioner was placed under
suspension by an order dated 21.12.2000,
revoked by an order dated 12.11.2001.
Further, in the instant case in which he
was placed under suspension an FIR was
also lodged, on 19.12.2000 (Annexure
No. 2 in which a charge sheet (Annexure
No. 5) has been filed in which name of
the petitioner does not find place.

10. Further, till the death of the
petitioner, no disciplinary proceeding has
been initiated in the matter in which he
has been placed under suspension.

11. In view of the said facts as well
as the provisions as provided under SubRule 2 of Rule 54-B of the U.P.
Fundamental Rules (Financial Hand Book
Volume II (parts 2 to 4), which is quoted
as under:-

"Notwithstanding anything contained
in Rule 53, where a Government servant
under
suspension
dies
before
the
disciplinary or court proceeding instituted
against him are concluded, the period
between the date of suspension and the
date of death shall be treated as duty for
all purposes and his family shall be paid
the full pay and allowances for that
period to which he would have been
entitled had he not been suspended,
subject to adjustment in respect of
subsistence allowance already paid."

12. The impugned order 28.05.2008
(Annexure No. 1) passed by O.P. No. 3
that the petitioner (deceased/Sri Brij Nath
Ram) is not entitled for salary excluding
substantial allowance for the period
21.12.2000 to 12.11.2001 is contrary,
liable to be set aside.

13. For the foregoing reasons, the
impugned
order
dated
28.05.2008
(Annexure No. 1) passed by O.P. No.
3/Superintendent of Police, Sitapur is set
aside to the extent that deceased/Sri Brij
Nath Ram is not entitled for salary
excluding substantial allowance for the
period 21.12.2000 to 12.11.2001, the said
amount shall be paid to Smt. Asha Devi
(petitioner No. 1/1)

14. With the above observations, the
writ petition is allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.03.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
 Misc. Single No.2099 of 2013

Smt. Karmaita

...Petitioner
Versus
The Tehsildar and another...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashwini Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.