Post-reinstatement Salary and Increments Must be Released Pending Final Determination of Intervening Suspension Period

The applicant, a Teacher Grade-II, was suspended on August 3, 2021, following his arrest in connection with FIR No. 47/2021 under Sections 8/20 and 18 of the NDPS Act involving alleged poppy cultivation.

He was released on bail on August 10, 2021.

Following an inquiry by the District Vigilance Officer recommending reinstatement subject to the criminal case outcome, the applicant was reinstated on January 15, 2024, with a warning.

Despite reinstatement, the respondents continued to pay only a suspension allowance, withholding regular salary, increments, and arrears for the post-reinstatement period; furthermore, the 29-month suspension period remained unregularized.

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to release the applicant's regular salary, increments, and arrears following his formal reinstatement into service.

2. Whether the intervening suspension period (August 3, 2021, to January 15, 2024) can be regularized prior to the conclusion of the pending criminal trial.

The court applied the general principles of service law governing the reinstatement of civil servants and the payment of emoluments during and after suspension.

Specifically, it recognized the administrative authority's discretion to link the final treatment of a suspension period to the "outcome of pending criminal trial" under relevant service rules.

It also adhered to the principle of "reasoned and speaking orders" in administrative decision-making.

The applicant restricted his prayer to seeking a direction for the respondents to treat the application as a representation for his post-reinstatement benefits.

The Tribunal noted that once an employee is reinstated, the entitlement to regular salary and increments is a service claim that must be decided "strictly in accordance with law and the rules governing the field".

However, concerning the 29-month suspension period, the Tribunal found that the Directorate of School Education had already issued a conditional order on January 15, 2024, stipulating that the categorization of this period depends on the outcome of the NDPS criminal trial.

Thus, the court applied a distinction between current salary (payable post-reinstatement) and the regularization of past suspension (contingent on acquittal/conviction).

The Tribunal declined to issue directions regarding the regularization of the suspension period itself, holding that such treatment must await the final outcome of the criminal trial as per the reinstatement order dated January 15, 2024.

No order as to costs was made.