# Smt. Chandrawati @ Chandri & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 3 ILRA 1453
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-12-15
- **Case number:** C..M.W.P. No. 1146 of 2014
- **Bench:** Krishna Murari, Shashi Kant
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-chandrawati-chandri-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43345
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section-4 and 6
readwith Right to fair compensation &
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Section 24-Lease back policy of Gramin
Abadi Land-award made 5 years prior to
1/1/14-on
two negative
conditions
of
Section 24-proceeding shall be deemed to
elasped-petition allowed.
Held: Para-14 & 22

## Text

3 All.
Smt. Chandrawati @ Chandri & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1453
sell was executed on 25.06.2005 and it was
agreed between the parties and within one
year the registered sale deed would be
executed. Since then plaintiffs/respondents is
showing his eagerness and willingness to get
the said contract executed. Earlier he had
sent several notices before the lapse of period
of one year. Thereafter he again sent notice
for specific performance of said agreement to
sell. On the other hand defendants/
respondents had been ignoring those notices
and taking undue benefit of their possession
and had been delaying the matter. It is
pertinent to mention that no plea of the
escalation of value of property was taken by
the defendants/appellants either in their
written statement or in first appeal. In fact no
such plea was raised by the appellants in first
appeal and its plea has suddenly been taken
directly in second appeal before this court.
Rule-2 of Order XLI CPC provides for the
grounds which may be taken in appeal. It
lays down that the appellant shall, not except
by leave of the Court, urge or be heard in
support of any ground of objection not set
forth in the memorandum of appeal.
Therefore this reason also the new plea of the
escalation of value of property should be
permitted to be taken directly in second
appeal. In absence of such plea before first
appellate court, appellant had no right to
argue on this point even before first appellate
court then permitting him on such point in
second appeal directly for admission of
appeal may cause pre judice to rights of
respondents.
9. On examination of the reasoning
recorded by the trial court, which are
affirmed by the learned first appellate
court in first appeal, I am of the view that
the judgments of the trial court as well as
the first appellate court are well reasoned
and based upon proper appreciation of the
entire evidence on record. No perversity
or infirmity is found in the concurrent
findings of fact recorded by the trial cout
that has been affirmed by the first
appellate court to warrant interference in
this appeal. No question of law, much less
a substantial question of law was involved
in the case before this Court. None of the
contentions of the learned counsel for the
appellant- plaintiffs can be sustained.
10. In view of the above, this Court
finds that no substantial question of law
arises in this appeal. The second appeal is
dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.12.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J.
THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT, J.
C..M.W.P. No. 1146 of 2014
Smt. Chandrawati @ Chandri & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Preetpal Singh Rathore, Sri Anil Tiwari
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri S.K. Tyagi, Sri Shivam Yadav
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section-4 and 6
readwith Right to fair compensation &
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Section 24-Lease back policy of Gramin
Abadi Land-award made 5 years prior to
1/1/14-on
two negative
conditions
of
Section 24-proceeding shall be deemed to
elasped-petition allowed.
Held: Para-14 & 22
14. Thus, it is well settled by various
pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex
1454
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court noted above that even if one of the
two negative conditions prescribed in
Section 24 (2) stands fulfilled and the
award is made five years prior to
commencement of Act, 2013, which is
01.01.2014, the proceedings shall be
deemed to have lapsed.
22. In view of the undisputed and admitted
facts of the case that award was made on
11.01.2000 and the petitioners have not
received the compensation and since the
same was deposited with the A.D.M. (L.A.),
in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court referred to above, will not
tantamount to compensation paid to the
land holders/persons interested, inasmuch
as the law stands settled that unless the
deposit is made in the court to which a
reference would lie in accordance with
Section 31 of the Act, 1894 and the
acquisition proceedings initiated under the
old Act cannot escape the mischief of Section
24 (2) of Act, 2013.
Case Law discussed:
(2014) 3 SCC 183; (2014) 6 SCC 586; (2014) 6
SCC 583; (2014) 6 SCC 564; (2015) 3 SCC
353; (2015) 4 SCC 325; 2015 (3) SCC 541;
(2015) 3 SCC 597
(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.)
1.
Heard Shri Anil Tiwari, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner,
learned Standing Counsel for the State
respondents and Shri Shivam Yadav
appearing for respondent nos. 4 to 6.
2. Dispute in this petition is in respect
of khasra plot no. 236, area 6-13-0 situate in
village Gejha Tilpatabad, NOIDA, district
Gautam Budh Nagar (hereinafter referred to
as 'land in dispute').
3. The land in dispute was recorded in
the name of one Ram Chandra s/o Phussi. He
transferred an area of 0-6-6-2/3 (6 biswa and
6-2/3 biswansi) by means of a registered sale
deed dated 10.12.1982 in favour of petitioner
no. 1. Petitioner no. 2 claims to have
purchased area of 1000 sq. mtrs. from
petitioner no. 1 by way of registered sale
deed dated 13.11.2011.
4.
The plot in dispute was subject
matter
of
acquisition
for
planned
development in district Ghaziabad through
New
Okhla
Industrial
Development
Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'NOIDA
Authority'). Notification under Section 4 (1)
of
the
Land
Acquisition
Act,
1894
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1894')
read with Section 17 (1) and (4) of the said
Act, was issued on 13.01.1995. Notification
under
Section
6
was
published
on
23.05.1997. A notice dated 20th June, 2013
was issued to petitioner no. 2 and two others
for demolition of the constructions standing
over the land in dispute. Petitioner no. 2 and
the other noticees challenged the same by
filing Writ Petition No. 36148 of 2013 on the
allegation that constructions were standing
on the land in dispute long before the date of
purchase of land. However, relying upon the
description of the property in the sale deed,
which was shown as vacant plot of land
having no covered area, a Division Bench of
this Court vide order dated 29.07.2013
dismissed the writ petition finding no
illegality or infirmity in the notice for
demolition.
5. The two petitioners filed the instant
petition seeking a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus to command the
respondent-NOIDA to exempt the land in
dispute from notification dated 31.01.1995.
Another writ, order or direction in the nature
of mandamus was also sought to command
the respondent-NOIDA to complete and
conclude the lease back proceedings initiated
by them in pursuance of 3rd Amendment of
Regulation 2006. Further a mandamus to
3 All.
Smt. Chandrawati @ Chandri & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1455
command the respondent nos. 2 to 6 not to
take any coercive action against the
petitioners with regard to their exclusive and
peaceful possession over plot no. 236 was
also prayed for.
6.
The writ petition was filed on the
allegation that in view of the 3rd
Amendment in Regulation 2006 providing
that Gramin abadi land upto 30th June, 2011
may be regularised and may be leased back
to respective farmers and since in the survey
undertaken by NOIDA, an abadi was found
over the land in dispute, therefore, under the
lease back policy, the land in dispute ought
to have been returned back to the petitioners.
However, subsequently, the petitioners made
an application seeking amendment in the
pleadings, which was allowed vide order
dated
15.01.2014.
After
amendment,
following reliefs came to be sought for in the
writ petition.
"(i) issue an appropriate writ, order
or direction in the nature of mandamus to
declare and treat the land acquisition
proceedings culminated
in the award
dated 11.01.2000 with regard to the area
1000 square yards which is part of Gata
No. 236 village Geja Tilpatabad, Pargana
and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh
Nagar as lapsed by operation of law as
contained in Section 24 (2) of Act namely
"The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013".
Or alternatively
Direct the respondents to consider
the claim of the petitioners for lease back
the disputed land under the provisions of
the Regulation namely "The New Okhla
Industrial Development Authority Rural
Abadi
Site
(Management
and
Regularization for Residential Purpose)
Regulation 2006" as amended from time
to time.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature
of
mandamus
directing
the
respondents no. 2 to 6 for not to take any
coercive action against the petitioners with
regard to their exclusive and peaceful
possession in Khasra No. 236 Village Gejha,
Tilapatabad Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam
Budh Nagar. Issue any other suitable writ,
order or direction which this Hon'ble court
may deem fit and proper under the
circumstances of the case."
7.
The aforesaid reliefs were claimed
through amendment on the basis of the
allegations, which were already there in
paragraph 31 of the writ petition that since
neither any compensation has been given to
the petitioners nor possession has been taken
from them, so the acquisition proceedings
shall be deemed to have lapsed in view of
Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 2013').
Section 24 of the Act, 2013 reads as under.
"24. Land acquisition process under Act
No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed
in certain cases.- (1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in this Act, in any case of
land acquisition proceedings initiated under
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894),-
(a) where no award under section 11
of the said Land Acquisition Act has been
made, then, all provisions of this Act
relating
to
the
determination
of
compensation shall apply; or
(b) where an award under said
section 11 has been made, then such
proceedings shall continue under the
provisions of the said Land Acquisition
Act, as if the said Act has not been
repealed.
1456
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in sub-section (1), in case of
land acquisition proceedings initiated
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1
of 1894), where an award under the said
section 11 has been made five years or
more prior to the commencement of this
Act but the physical possession of the
land
has
not
been
taken
or
the
compensation has not been paid the said
proceedings shall be deemed to have
lapsed and the appropriate Government, if
it
so
chooses,
shall
initiate
the
proceedings of such land acquisition
afresh in accordance with the provisions
of this Act;
Provided that where an award has
been made and compensation in respect of
a majority of land holdings has not been
deposited
in
the
account
of
the
beneficiaries,
then,
all
beneficiaries
specified
in
the
notification
for
acquisition under section 4 of the said
Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to
compensation in accordance with the
provisions of this Act."
8. A bare reading of Section 24 (2)
of Act, 2013 goes to show that upon
fulfilment of two conditions mentioned
therein, the acquisition proceedings made
under the old Act shall be deemed to have
lapsed. The said two conditions are:-
(1) award under the said section 11
has been made five years or more prior to
the commencement of the new Act, i.e.,
prior to 01.01.2014.
(2) the physical possession of the
land
has
not
been
taken
or
the
compensation has not been paid.
9. In the present case, according to
the pleadings in the counter affidavit filed
by NOIDA, the award was declared on
11.01.2000. It may be relevant to quote
paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit.
"8. That the contents of paragraph nos.
3 and 4 of the writ petition are not admitted
and are denied. It is further submitted that
Khasra No. 236 area 6-13-0 Bigha was
acquired in the year 1995 itself through
notification U/s-4/17 dated 13.01.1995 and
notification U/s-6/17 dated 21.09.1995. The
possession of aforesaid land was taken over
by the authority way back on 23.05.1997 and
20.12.1997. Further, award with regarding
the aforesaid acquisition was declared on
11.01.2000.
New
Okhla
Industrial
Development Authority Rural Abadi Site
(Management
and
Regularisation
for
Residential Purposes) Regulations, 2006 is
applicable to those who are original tenure
holders of the revenue villages within the
territorial limit of NOIDA. In the present
case, the petitioner no. 1 is the resident of
New Delhi and never came to NOIDA for
residential purposes. It is further being
clarified that she further sold out the property
to petitioner no. 2 in the year 2011 to the
person who also is not the resident of same
revenue village. Moreover, sale to the
petitioner no. 2 was made almost after about
16 years of acquisition. However, the said
sale and purchase of acquired land clearly
shows that there was no Abadi over the land
in question. Therefore, no benefit whatsoever
can be granted to the petitioners."
10. In view of the aforesaid averment
made in the counter affidavit admitting that
the award has been declared on 11.01.2000,
the first condition prescribed in Section 24 of
Act, 2013 stands fulfilled. The question as to
whether the possession of land in dispute
which was subject matter of acquisition has
been taken by the respondent-NOIDA, is a
disputed question of fact, inasmuch as
averments on oath contrary to each other
3 All.
Smt. Chandrawati @ Chandri & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1457
have been made by both the parties.
However, said issue will not detain us from
proceeding further in the matter, inasmuch as
the second condition in Section 24 (2) of the
Act, 2013 consists of two contingencies,
physical possession of the land has not been
taken or the compensation has not been paid.
The use of word 'or' by the Legislature
clearly goes to show that, in case, where an
award has been made five years or more
prior to commencement of the Act and either
of the two contingencies, viz., physical
possession of the land has not been taken or
the compensation has not been paid, is
satisfied, such acquisition proceedings were
deemed to have lapsed. The provisions of
Section 24 (2) has been subject matter of
interpretation by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.
Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors.,
(2014) 3 SCC 183. It may be relevant to
quote paragraphs 10 and 11 of the report,
where this issue has been discussed and
answered.
"10. Insofar as sub-section (1) of Section
24 is concerned, it begins with non obstante
clause. By this, Parliament has given
overriding effect to this provision over all
other provisions of 2013 Act. It is provided in
clause (a) that where the land acquisition
proceedings have been initiated under the
1894 Act but no award under Section 11 is
made, then the provisions of 2013 Act shall
apply relating to the determination of
compensation. Clause (b) of Section 24 (1)
makes provision that where land acquisition
proceedings have been initiated under the
1894 Act and award has been made under
Section 11, then such proceedings shall
continue under the provisions of the 1894 Act
as if that Act has not been repealed.
11. Section 24 (2) also begins with
non obstante clause. This provision has
overriding effect over Section 24 (1).
Section 24 (2) enacts that in relation to the
land acquisition proceedings initiated
under 1894 Act, where an award has been
made five years or more prior to the
commencement of the 2013 Act and
either of the two contingencies is
satisfied, viz; (i) physical possession of
the land has not been taken or
(ii) the compensation has not been paid;
such acquisition proceedings shall be
deemed to have lapsed. On the lapse of such
acquisition proceedings, if the appropriate
government still chooses to acquire the land
which was the subject matter of acquisition
under the 1894 Act then it has to initiate the
proceedings afresh under the 2013 Act. The
proviso appended to Section 24 (2) deals
with a situation where in respect of the
acquisition initiated under the 1894 Act an
award has been made and compensation in
respect of a majority of land holdings has not
been deposited in the account of the
beneficiaries then all the beneficiaries
specified in Section 4 notification become
entitled to compensation under 2013 Act."
11. The same view has been reiterated
in the case of Bharat Kumar Vs. State of
Haryana & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 586. After
noticing the provisions of Section 24 of the
Act, 2013, it has been held as under.
"Sub-section
(2)
of
Section
24
commences with a non obstante clause. It is a
beneficial provision. In view of this provision,
if the physical possession of the land has not
been taken by the acquiring authority though
the award is passed and if the compensation
has not been paid to the land owners or has
not been deposited before the appropriate
forum, the proceedings initiated under the
1894 Act is deemed to have been lapsed."
12.
The ratio of the decision of the
Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has
1458
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs. State of
Haryana & Ors., (2014) 6 SCC 583, Union
of India & Ors. Vs. Shiv Raj & Ors., (2014)
6 SCC 564, Shree Balaji Nagar Residential
Association Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.,
(2015) 3 SCC 353 and Velaxan Kumar Vs.
Union of India & Ors., (2015) 4 SCC 325.
13. Again, in a recent decision in the
case of Rajiv Chowdhrie HUF Vs. Union of
India & Ors., 2015 (3) SCC 541, the ratio of
the decision in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) has been reaffirmed.
14. Thus, it is well settled by various
pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex
Court noted above that even if one of the
two negative conditions prescribed in
Section 24 (2) stands fulfilled and the
award is made five years prior to
commencement of Act, 2013, which is
01.01.2014, the proceedings shall be
deemed to have lapsed.
15. In the light of the aforesaid, we now
proceed to test whether the compensation has
not been paid to the petitioners and, thus, the
second
alternative
negative
condition
prescribed by Section 24 (2) stands fulfilled.
16. In the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the NOIDA in paragraphs 35
and 37, it has been pleaded as under.
"35. That the contents of paragraph
no. 15 of the 1st supplementary affidavit
need no reply from the side of answering
respondents. It is, however, submitted that
95% of compensation has already been
disbursed by the answering respondents.
The petitioners with mala fide intention
did not accept the compensation, as such,
it has been deposited with A.D.M. (L.A.).
37. That the contents of paragraph
no. 17 of the 1st supplementary affidavit
are not admitted and are denied. It is
further submitted that compensation has
already been paid by the answering
respondents, which has been deposited
with ADM (LA), the same can very well
be received by the petitioners."
17. In view of the aforesaid averments,
it is, thus, clear that compensation has neither
been paid to the petitioners nor it has been
deposited in the court to which a reference
under Section 18 would be submitted as
mandated by Section 31 of Act, 1894, which
reads as under.
"31. Payment of compensation or
deposit of same in court. - (1) On making
an award under Section 11, the Collector
shall tender payment of the compensation
awarded by him to the persons interested
entitled thereto according to the award,
and shall pay it to them unless prevented
by some one or more of the contingencies
mentioned in the next sub-section.
(2) If they shall not consent to receive
it, or if there be no person competent to
alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as
to the title to receive the compensation or as
to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall
deposit the amount of the compensation in
the court to which a reference under Section
18 would be submitted: "
18.
Thus, Section 31 of Act, 1894
enjoins upon the Collector of making an
award under Section 11 to tender payment of
compensation to persons interested entitled
thereto according to the award. It further
mandates the Collector to make payment of
compensation to them unless prevented by
one of the contingencies contemplated in
sub-section (2), which are:
3 All.
Smt. Chandrawati @ Chandri & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1459
(i) the person interested entitled to
compensation did not consent to receive
it, (ii) there is no person competent to
alienate the land, and (iii) there is dispute
as to the title to receive compensation or
as to the apportionment of it.
19.

If
due
to
any
of
the
contingencies contemplated in Section 31
(2) of Act, 1894, the Collector is
prevented from making payment of
compensation to the persons interested
who are entitled to compensation, he is
required to deposit the compensation in
the court to which reference under Section
18 may be made.
20.

While
interpreting
the
expression 'compensation has not been
paid' used in Section 24 (2), Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra), has held as under.
"15. Simply put, Section 31 of the 1894
Act makes provision for payment of
compensation or deposit of the same in the
court. This provision requires that the
Collector
should
tender
payment
of
compensation as awarded by him to the
persons interested who are entitled to
compensation. If due to happening of any
contingency as contemplated in Section 31
(2), the compensation has not been paid, the
Collector should deposit the amount of
compensation in the court to which reference
can be made under Section 18.
16. The mandatory nature of the
provision in Section 31 (2) with regard to
deposit of the compensation in the court is
further
fortified
by
the
provisions
contained in Section 32, 33 and 34. As a
matter of fact, Section 33 gives power to
the court, on an application by a person
interested or claiming an interest in such
money, to pass an order to invest the
amount so deposited in such government
or other approved securities and may
direct the interest or other proceeds of any
such investment to be accumulated and
paid in such manner as it may consider
proper so that the parties interested
therein may have the benefit therefrom as
they might have had from the land in
respect whereof such money shall have
been deposited or as near thereto as may
be.
17. While enacting Section 24 (2),
Parliament definitely had in its view Section
31 of the 1894 Act. From that one thing is
clear that it did not intend to equate the word
"paid" to "offered" or "tendered". But at the
same time, we do not think that by use of the
word "paid", Parliament intended receipt of
compensation by the landowners/persons
interested. In our view, it is not appropriate to
give a literal construction to the expression
"paid" used in this sub-section (sub-section
(2) of Section 24). If a literal construction
were to be given, then it would amount to
ignoring procedure, mode and manner of
deposit provided in Section 31 (2) of the
1894 Act in the event of happening of any of
the contingencies contemplated therein
which may prevent the Collector from
making actual payment of compensation. We
are of the view, therefore, that for the
purposes of Section 24 (2), the compensation
shall be regarded as "paid" if the
compensation has been offered to the person
interested and such compensation has been
deposited in the court where reference under
Section 18 can be made on happening of any
of the contingencies contemplated under
Section 31 (2) of the 1894 Act. In other
words, the compensation may be said to have
been "paid" within the meaning of Section
24 (2) when the Collector (or for that matter
Land Acquisition Officer) has discharged his
obligation and deposited the amount of
compensation in court and made that amount
1460
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
available to the interested person to be dealt
with as provided in Sections 32 and 33.
18. 1894 Act being an expropriatory
legislation has to be strictly followed. The
procedure, mode and manner for payment
of compensation are prescribed in Part V
(Sections 31-34) of the 1894 Act. The
Collector, with regard to the payment of
compensation, can only act in the manner
so provided. It is settled proposition of
law (classic statement of Lord Roche in
Nazir Ahmad[1]) that where a power is
given to do a certain thing in a certain
way, the thing must be done in that way
or
not
at
all.
Other
methods
of
performance are necessarily forbidden."
21. The same view has been
reiterated in the case of Bharat Kumar
(supra),
Bimla
Devi
(supra),
Rajiv
Chowdhrie HUF (supra) and Sita Ram
Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., (2015) 3
SCC 597.
22.
In view of the undisputed and
admitted facts of the case that award was
made on 11.01.2000 and the petitioners have
not received the compensation and since the
same was deposited with the A.D.M. (L.A.),
in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court referred to above, will not
tantamount to compensation paid to the land
holders/persons interested, inasmuch as the
law stands settled that unless the deposit is
made in the court to which a reference would
lie in accordance with Section 31 of the Act,
1894 and the acquisition proceedings
initiated under the old Act cannot escape the
mischief of Section 24 (2) of Act, 2013.
23. In view of the aforesaid facts
and discussions and the reasons recorded
by us, the acquisition proceedings in
respect of the petitioners' land stands
lapsed.
24. The writ petition, accordingly,
stands
allowed.
The
impugned
notification in so far as the land of the
petitioners is concerned, the same stands
quashed.
25. We, however, leave it open to
the State Government, if it so chooses, to
initiate proceedings for acquisition of the
land in dispute afresh in accordance with
the provisions of Act, 2013.
26. However, in the facts and
circumstances, we do not make any order
as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.12.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DEVENDRA KUMAR
ARORA, J.
W.P. No. 2156 (S/S) of 2009
Syed Amirul Haq
 ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Amit Bose
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
U.P. Police Officer Subordinate Ranks
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules-1991-Rule14(i)-disciplinary proceeding against police
constable-concluded for dismissal-without
deciding the question-whether unauthorized
absence was willful or beyond his controlpetitioner suffering from paralytic attacktreatment by different doctors in different
hospitals-can not be termed unauthorized
absence
from
duty-held-entitled
for
reinstatement as the petitioner already
retired-arrears of salary during period of
suspension to punishment not payable-but