Santhosh Solomon vs DEPARTMENT OF POSTS

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
MA No.180/516 of 2026 in OA No.180/174 of 2026
th
Wednesday, this the 19 day of August, 2026

CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs. V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Santhosh Solomon, Aged 48 years, S/o. (Late) Solomon D, Assistant
Branch Post Master (ABPM), Cheruvakkal Branch Post Office A/w Ayoor
Sub Post Office, Under Punalur Head Post Office, Pathanamthitta Postal
Division, Kollam District - 691533, Residing at: Sandra Bhavan,
Nellikunnam P.O., Kollam District, Kerala -691527
- Miscellaneous Applicant/
Applicant in the O.A.
[By Advocate: Sri.Vineeth Komalachandran]

Versus

1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to Government,
Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications, Government of India,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chief Post Master General, Department of Posts, Office of the Chief
Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram-695033.
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts,
Pathanamthitta Postal Division, Pathanamthitta - 689645.
4. The Inspector of Posts. Office of the Inspector of Posts, Punalur Sub
Division, Punalur, Pathanamthitta Postal Division,
Kollam District-691305.
- Respondents/Respondents in the O.A.
[By Advocate: Ashok Suresh, ACGSC]
Deepa S 2026.09.01 13:08:27+05'30'

2
The application having been heard on 10.08.2026, the Tribunal on
19.08.2026 delivered the following:
O R D E R
Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member
This is a Miscellaneous Application filed under Rule 24 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 seeking to direct the
respondents to immediately implement the final order passed by this Tribunal
in the above O.A. on 08.04.2026 by disposing the representation dated
02.09.2025, Annexure-A4, within the time period and within the extended
period of seven days, to pay him exemplary cost and other reliefs.
2. Applicant is an Assistant Branch Post Master in Cheruvakkal
Branch Post Office in Ayoor Sub Post Office under Punalur Head Post Office in
Pathanamthitta Postal Division. After having involved in a criminal case, when
th
he was arrested by police and detained in custody, by order of the 4
respondent, he was placed under 'deemed put off duty' from 10.08.2018 to
14.06.2019 under Rule 12 of GDS(Conduct and Engagement) Rules. Later, a
charge sheet was filed against him, which was tried by the Court of Assistant
Sessions Judge. The Court found him not guilty and acquitted and he was
reinstated in service. Then he filed Annexure-A4 representation before the
respondents seeking a direction to keep the period of deemed put off duty
Deepa S 2026.09.01 13:08:27+05'30'

3
from 10.08.2018 to 14.06.2019 as duty for all purposes. By the order of this
Tribunal dated 08.04.2026, the O.A. was disposed of directing the respondents
to consider and dispose of the representation within 15 days from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. That was not done within time. Later, an
application for extension of time was sought and further seven days time was
granted and the respondents were directed to consider and dispose of the
representation on or before 17.06.2026. This M.A. was filed for implementing
the Annexure-MA1 order dated 08.04.2026.
3. During the pendency of the M.A., the learned Standing Counsel
filed a statement along with Annexure-MAR1 order dated 16.06.20216, where
it has been concluded as follow:
“In view of the above, the competent authority has ordered that in
compliance with CAT order dated 08.04.2026 in OA 174/2026 and
MA 516/2026 in OA 174/2026 dated 10.06.2026, that the period
of “deemed put off duty” from 10.08.2018 to 14.06.2019 will be
treated as duty for all purposes except for payment of full TRCA
arrears for the aforementioned put off period under the principle,
"No work, no pay".”
4. Naturally, when Annexure-MAR1 order was passed, it was thought
that the petitioner/applicant would close the MA. But, referring to Rule 24 of
the CAT(Procedure) Rules, Sri.Vineeeth Komalachandran, learned counsel for
Deepa S 2026.09.01 13:08:27+05'30'

4
the petitioner has strenuously pointed out that the said Annexure-MAR1 order
is illegal, that the applicant stands fully exonerated from the criminal charges
and therefore, there is no justification in curtailing his TRCA. At the time of
placing him on 'put off duty' he was paid only 25% of the TRCA and therefore
during the period of 'put off duty' he is entitled to get the entire TRCA, which
is only about Rs.70,000/- that there is no justification in truncating the
amount.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on the
order of Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.650/2019 of 16.08.2022 and
submitted that in the light of amended Rule 12 of GDS (Conduct and
Engagement) Rules 2020, the applicant is entitled to get back the entire
amount of TRCA once he has been reinstated, on full exoneration. In the said
decision of the Bangalore Bench, the Original Applicant had suffered a censure
only, still the Tribunal directed to pay full amount of TRCA on reinstatement.
According to the learned counsel, the applicant is entitled to get an identical
order.
6. On the other hand, Sri.Ashok Suresh, learned Standing Counsel
has filed an argument note and also placed reliance on the judgment of the
Orissa High Court in WP(C)No.8692/2022 which was rendered basing on
Deepa S 2026.09.01 13:08:27+05'30'

5
various authorities rendered by Apex Court. According to the learned counsel,
the applicant is not entitled to get complete restoration of the TRCA since he
was placed under suspension when was involved in a criminal case and was in
remand for the period. The criminal case was not registered at the instance of
the respondents. Therefore, the respondents have no liability to pay him TRCA
for the period he did not work. The principle of 'no work no pay' is quite
applicable to the facts of the case.
7. The learned Standing Counsel also submitted that such a question
cannot be considered in this M.A., because the order of the Tribunal was only
to consider and dispose of the Annexure-A4 representation, which has been
done though during the extended period. Once that has been done, the M.A.
has lost its relevance and the correctness of Annexure-MAR1 order cannot be
considered here.
8. No doubt, Rule 24 of the CAT(Procedure) Rules enables this
Tribunal to 'give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give
effect to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of
justice.' This Rule is pari materia to Section 151 of the CPC, which is a saving
clause for doing complete justice between the parties. As rightly pointed
out by the learned Standing Counsel, our direction in MA1 order was
Deepa S 2026.09.01 13:08:27+05'30'

6
only to consider and dispose of Annexure-A4 representation within 15 days
from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Later, we granted
enlargement of time by seven days. Within the extended period, the
Annexure-MAR1 order has been passed holding that the deemed put off duty
will be treated as duty for all purposes except for payment of full TRCA arrears
since the principle, 'no work no pay' is applicable.
9. In the light of the rival contentions raised by the parties, we are
inclined to go into the merit of that contention also. In this connection, it is
advantageous to rely on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity
Board [(1996) 11 SCC 603], Union of India v. Jaipal Singh [(2004) 1 SCC 121],
State Bank of India v. Mohammed Abdul Rahim [(2013) 11 SCC 67] and Banshi
Dhar v. State of Rajasthan [(2007) 1 SCC 324], which all go against the
argument of the learned counsel for the applicant.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on Rule 12 of the
GDS(Conduct and Engagement) Rules, the second proviso to sub rule(3) says
that 'in the event of departmental proceedings initiated against a GDS (who
was placed under put off duty) for imposition of major penalty, finally ends
with the imposition of a minor penalty, the Sevak concerned should be paid
Deepa S 2026.09.01 13:08:27+05'30'

7
full Time Related Continuity Allowance and allowances for the period of 'put
off duty'. Here, the applicant was not placed on 'put off duty' on the basis of
any departmental action or at the instance of the department. But after having
been remanded in custody in a criminal case, which was not registered at the
instance of the department, he was kept out of service. So, it was statutory
that once he was remanded in custody beyond 48 hours, to place him on put
off duty. In such an event the applicant was bound to be placed on put off
duty, over which the respondents had no concern.
11. Various authorities, quoted supra, clearly indicate that in such
cases Government is not liable to pay back wages for the period for which it
could not avail the services of the employee, the employee is not entitled to
get back wages. In the Orissa case relied on by the learned Standing Counsel,
it is very clear that factual situation is almost same. There, the GDS was
involved in a criminal case and was convicted initially by the Sessions Court.
Thereafter, the Hon'ble High Court reversed the finding, following which he
was reinstated in service. Then the entire back wages including TRCA were
claimed by the GDS. By the time the request was considered, he passed away
and his legal representatives pursued the claim. The Tribunal allowed the O.A.,
against which the department preferred WP(C) No.8692/2022. After hearing
Deepa S 2026.09.01 13:08:27+05'30'

8
both the parties and considering various authorities on the subject, the Orissa
High Court concluded as follows:
“15. In view of the law decided by the apex Court in the judgments
rendered in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer,
Gujarat Electricity Board [(1996) 11 SCC 603], State Bank of India v.
Mohammed Abdul Rahim [(2013) 11 SCC 67] and Banshi Dhar v.
State of Rajasthan [(2007) 1 SCC 324], which have also been referred
to by this Court in the case of Shiba Prasad Satapathy (supra), this
Court unhesitatingly comes to a conclusion that for the period, i.e.
from 15.07.1997 to 15.01.2008, which has been treated as put off
duty, the deceased employee is not entitled to get any payment as
claimed by him, rather the said period should be treated for all other
purposes, such as departmental examinations and eligibility for
sanction of ex gratia gratuity and severance allowance and that for
the purpose of TRCA, the same should be limited to the ex-gratia
compensation. Thereby, the Tribunal has committed a gross error
apparent on the face of the record by allowing the benefit of back
wages for the period from 15.07.1997 to 15.01.2008, which is not
permissible to the deceased employee, as he had not rendered any
service for the department. Accordingly, the order dated 03.06.2020
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 936 of 2013
cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is liable to be
quashed and is hereby quashed.
16. In the result, the writ petition filed by Union of India
succeeds and is thus allowed. But, however, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.”
Deepa S 2026.09.01 13:08:27+05'30'

9
The said decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the case.
12. To sum up, the applicant was placed on put off duty, when he was
remanded in police custody. Later, he was reinstated in service and was
exonerated by the Court. During the period of 'put off duty' his services were
not received by the department and the department had no concern about
the criminal proceedings. Since he was reinstated in service and exonerated of
the criminal case, the department has no liability to pay him the entire TRCA
for the period his services were not received by the department. Therefore,
the principle of 'no work no pay' is squarely applicable and the applicant is not
entitled to get the back wages in the form of TRCA.
The Miscellaneous Application lacks merits and is dismissed. No costs.
th
(Dated this the 19 August, 2026)
V.RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ds
Deepa S 2026.09.01 13:08:27+05'30'

10
List of Annexures
Annexure-MA1 – A true copy of the order dated 08.04.2026 passed by this
Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A.No.180/00174/2026

*
Deepa S 2026.09.01 13:08:27+05'30'