Intervening period after reinstatement must count as service, though back wages may be denied.

The applicant, a railway employee, was removed from service by disciplinary order dated 15 April 2013.

On revision, the penalty was modified to reinstatement with reduction to the lower post of Assistant Loco Pilot for one year, with non-cumulative effect.

The respondents treated the period between removal and reinstatement, 15 April 2013 to 2 January 2014, as dies non.

After an earlier Tribunal order directed consideration of his representation, the respondents rejected his claim to restoration of service benefits.

He challenged that decision, seeking restoration of pay and increments; the respondents relied on the fact that he had not worked during the intervening period and on Fundamental Rules 54 and 54A.

1. Whether the intervening period between the applicant’s removal and reinstatement could lawfully be treated as dies non after the removal penalty was modified on revision.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to restoration of service benefits, including pay and increments, while being denied back wages for the intervening period.

Rule 1343(3) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code provides that, in a case falling under sub-rule (2), the period of absence from duty, including suspension preceding dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, is to be treated as duty for all purposes.

The Tribunal also relied on the distinction between reinstatement and fresh appointment: reinstatement restores an employee to the prior service position, though it does not by itself determine entitlement to back wages.

It referred to Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab (2002) 9 SCC 492 and Ram Krushna Sahu v. Union of India, 2020 (1) AISLJ 297, as discussed in Union of India v. Binod Kumar Singh, Writ A No. 6841 of 2024 (Allahabad High Court, 3 May 2024), concerning continuity of service after reinstatement.

It further considered Central Bank of India v. Dragendra Singh Jadon, Civil Appeal No. 5036 of 2022 (judgment dated 28 February 2022), which recognised that reinstatement restores the employee to the previous position while permitting denial of back wages.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s case concerned reinstatement following modification of the removal penalty, not a fresh appointment.

Applying Rule 1343(3) and the authorities on continuity of service, it held that the period during which the removal order prevented the applicant from working could not be declared dies non once the penalty was modified and he was reinstated.

The one-year reduction in the lower post was a non-cumulative penalty; after its completion, the applicant was entitled to restoration of the benefits that had been deferred because of that penalty.

However, as the revisional authority had not directed payment for the intervening period, and the authorities permitted denial of back wages, the Tribunal distinguished service benefits and qualifying service from wages for that period.

It directed the respondents to restore the applicant’s applicable benefits, including pay and increments, after completion of the modified punishment.

The intervening period is to count for qualifying service and other benefits, but the applicant is not entitled to back wages for that period.

The respondents were directed to complete the exercise within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order; no costs were awarded.