Srinagar Tribunal Gives UT Six Weeks To Decide Retired Engineer’s Back-Pay Claim After 2007 Removal and 2018 Reinstatement

The applicant, a retired Srinagar Municipal Corporation employee, was removed from service by Government Order No. 181-HUD of 2007 dated 1 June 2007 following allegations concerning the genuineness of his engineering degree.

He relied on his acquittal in criminal proceedings and subsequent departmental consideration, and stated that Government Order No. 196-HUD of 2018 reinstated him but left unresolved the treatment of his intervening absence, salary arrears and related service and retirement benefits.

After argument, his counsel asked that the O.A., its annexures and any earlier representation be treated as a comprehensive representation and decided in accordance with law and the reinstatement order; the respondents did not object to appropriate directions.

The Tribunal identified no specific statute, service-rule provision or precedent as the basis for its decision.

It directed the respondents to determine the applicant’s claims under the applicable statutory provisions, rules and governing legal framework, in terms of Government Order No. 196-HUD of 2018, and subject to his eligibility and entitlement under law and the absence of any legal impediment.

The Tribunal did not determine the substantive legal status of the intervening period or the applicant’s entitlement to arrears.

The Tribunal expressly declined to express any opinion on the merits.

Given the applicant’s limited request and the respondents’ lack of objection, it directed the respondents to consider the O.A., its annexures and any earlier representation together as a comprehensive representation.

The respondents must issue a reasoned and speaking order addressing the claims under the applicable legal framework and the reinstatement order.

The direction concerning wages was conditional: wages were to be paid if the cited order dated 6 July 2018 held the field as on the date of compliance.

The respondents were directed to decide the comprehensive representation by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks after service of a certified copy of the order and a copy of the O.A.

The applicant’s entitlement remained subject to law, eligibility and any legal impediment; the Tribunal did not finally adjudicate his claim to salary arrears or other service benefits.