Mohinder Lal vs D/o Home Ut Of Jammu & Kashmir on 31 December 2025

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP No.1275/2014 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.7441/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking following relief: - It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may in the facts and circumstances of the case be pleased to pass an appropriate writ, command or direction in the nature of:- a) Writ of certiorari seeking quashment of the Order bearing No.364 of 2007 dated 03.07.2007 to the extent it denies the monetary benefits to the petitioner i.e. for the period w.e.f.

18.05. 1999 to 15.12.1999 and from 25.07.2001 to 26.08. 2003. b) Mandamus commanding the respondents to grant consequential benefits from the date it became due in favour of the petitioner. c) Any other additional/ alternate relief which this Hon'ble court may, in the facts and circumstances of the case, deem fit and by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 3 :: TA 7441/2021

proper may also be granted in favour of the petitioner as against the respondents.

3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows: - a) The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 1275/2014, which was originally instituted before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and, upon transfer of jurisdiction, stands registered as T.A. No. 7441/2021 before this Tribunal b) The applicant, Mohinder Lal, was appointed as a Constable in the Jammu & Kashmir Police and, over the years, served at various places of posting. On account of his length of service, he was promoted as Selection Grade Constable and allotted SGCT No. 944/K. At present, he is posted at District Police Lines, Kathua. c) While the applicant was posted in District Doda during the year 1998, allegations surfaced regarding his unauthorized absence from duty. On account of continuous absence, the Senior by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 4 :: TA 7441/2021

Superintendent of Police, Doda, passed Order No. 993 of 1999 dated 18.05.1999, removing the applicant from service. d) Aggrieved thereby, the applicant approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing SWP No. 1603/1999. The Hon’ble High Court, vide order dated 05.11.1999, quashed the said removal order and granted liberty to the competent authority to conduct a fresh departmental enquiry in accordance with law. e) In compliance with the aforesaid judicial directions, the applicant was reinstated in service and rejoined duties on 16.12.1999. Thereafter, a de novo departmental enquiry was initiated. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, the applicant was once again removed from service vide Order No. 751 of 2001 dated 25.07.2001. f) The applicant challenged the second order of removal by filing a review petition before the competent authority. The reviewing authority, namely the Zonal Police Headquarters, Jammu Zone, vide Order No. 202 of 2003 dated 16.08.2003, accepted the review, set aside the removal order dated 25.07.2001, and by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 5 :: TA 7441/2021

reinstated the applicant into service. However, liberty was again reserved in favour of the department to hold a de novo enquiry. g) It was also observed in the said review order that certain pleas raised by the applicant during the enquiry, including allegations of overwriting and irregularities in Daily Diary entries, had not been properly examined by the Enquiry Officer. Consequently, the earlier enquiry proceedings were found to be procedurally deficient. h) Pursuant to the fresh enquiry, the disciplinary authority, vide Order No. 606 of 2004 dated 10.11.2004, imposed the penalty of forfeiture of annual increments for a period of three years and treated the period of removal from 25.07.2001 to 26.08.2003 as dies non. i) The applicant again submitted a representation-cum-review petition against the said punishment order. The matter was examined by the Zonal Police Headquarters, Jammu, which, vide Order No. 364 of 2007 dated 03.07.2007, modified the earlier decision and issued the following directions:

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 6 :: TA 7441/2021

 The period of unauthorized absence from 18.09.1998 to 18.05.1999 was ordered to be treated as on duty.  The periods of removal from 18.05.1999 to 16.12.1999 and from 25.07.2001 to 26.08.2003 were ordered to be treated as leave of whatever kind due, with a specific stipulation that the applicant would not be entitled to any monetary benefits for the said periods. j) In implementation of the aforesaid order, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Doda, vide Order No. 466 of 2014 dated 01.09.2014, treated the said periods as leave without pay, as no admissible leave was found due in the leave account of the applicant. k) The grievance of the applicant in the present proceedings is confined only to the denial of back wages and monetary benefits for the periods during which he remained out of service, despite reinstatement.

4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: - by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 7 :: TA 7441/2021

a) At the outset, the answering respondents submit that the present Transfer Application is devoid of merit, misconceived, and legally untenable. The applicant seeks re-adjudication of issues which have already attained finality through departmental orders passed strictly in accordance with statutory service rules. b) It is denied that any fundamental, legal, or statutory right of the applicant has been infringed. The action taken by the department is lawful, reasoned, and supported by the relevant provisions of the J&K Leave Rules. c) The applicant has suppressed material facts and has attempted to project an incomplete narrative to claim monetary benefits to which he is not entitled under law. d) While it is admitted that the applicant was reinstated pursuant to judicial and departmental orders, it is categorically submitted that reinstatement does not automatically confer a right to back wages or salary for the intervening period, particularly when the absence was not found to be wholly unjustified. e) The periods in question were consciously treated as leave of the kind due and, subsequently, as leave without pay, strictly in by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 8 :: TA 7441/2021

consonance with Rule 25, Rule 32, and Rule 39 of the J&K Leave Rules, which clearly provide that:  A government servant remaining absent beyond sanctioned leave is not entitled to leave salary.  Extraordinary leave, when granted in absence of other admissible leave, carries no entitlement to pay or allowances. f) The competent authority, after due application of mind, found that the applicant had no leave at his credit for the relevant periods. Accordingly, the treatment of the said period as leave without pay was a statutory consequence and not a punitive action. g) It is further submitted that the applicant has already been extended all consequential service benefits, including promotion from the due date along with his batch-mates. Thus, no prejudice has been caused to his service career. h) The contention that the denial of monetary benefits is arbitrary or violative of principles of natural justice is misconceived. The applicant was afforded multiple opportunities through by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 9 :: TA 7441/2021

departmental proceedings, reviews, and judicial interventions, and the final decision reflects a balanced and equitable consideration of his case. i) The respondents, therefore, submit that the claim for wages for the period during which the applicant admittedly did not render service is legally unsustainable and contrary to settled principles of service jurisprudence.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. The present Transfer Application, originally filed as SWP No. 1275/2014 before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu, stands transferred and registered as T.A. No. 7441/2021 before this Tribunal. The applicant seeks quashment of Order No. 364 of 2007 dated 03.07.2007 to the extent it denies him monetary benefits for the periods from 18.05.1999 to 16.12.1999 and from 25.07.2001 to 26.08.2003, along with a consequential direction for release of back wages and other monetary benefits. The facts giving rise to the present dispute are largely undisputed. The applicant was appointed as Constable in the J&K Police and was later promoted as by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 10 :: TA 7441/2021

Selection Grade Constable. While posted in District Doda, he remained unauthorizedly absent from duty, which led to his removal from service vide order dated 18.05.1999. The said order was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court and was quashed on 05.11.1999 with liberty to the department to conduct a fresh enquiry. Pursuant thereto, the applicant was reinstated; however, after conclusion of a de novo departmental enquiry, he was again removed from service vide order dated 25.07.2001. The applicant preferred a review petition, which was accepted, and the removal order was set aside vide order dated 16.08.2003, reinstating him into service with liberty to hold a fresh enquiry. Eventually, a minor penalty was imposed and the competent authority, while regulating the period during which the applicant remained out of service, ordered that the same be treated as leave of whatever kind due, without entitlement to any monetary benefits. The applicant has been granted all other consequential service benefits including promotion from the due date along with his batchmates, and the only surviving grievance raised before this Tribunal is the denial of back wages for the period during which he did not perform duties.

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 11 :: TA 7441/2021

7. The short question that arises for determination is whether the applicant is entitled to back wages merely because the orders of removal were set aside and he was reinstated into service. The answer to this issue is no longer res integra. It is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that reinstatement does not automatically confer a right to back wages. Entitlement to wages for the intervening period depends upon the nature of misconduct, the outcome of disciplinary proceedings, and whether the employee has been fully exonerated. In the present case, the applicant was not honourably acquitted nor fully exonerated of the charges. On the contrary, disciplinary proceedings ultimately resulted in imposition of penalty, which clearly demonstrates that the applicant was not free from blame. The competent authority, while taking a lenient view, chose to protect the continuity of service by treating the disputed period as leave rather than as a break in service, but consciously denied monetary benefits, which is a legally permissible course.

8. The impugned decision is firmly rooted in the statutory framework governing service conditions. The period in question was regulated strictly in accordance with the J&K Leave Rules, which provide that a by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 12 :: TA 7441/2021

government servant who remains absent beyond sanctioned leave is not entitled to leave salary and that extraordinary leave, when granted in absence of other admissible leave, does not carry any entitlement to pay or allowances. Once it was found that the applicant had no leave to his credit for the relevant period, the only lawful option available to the authority was to treat the said period as leave without pay. The decision, therefore, is neither arbitrary nor punitive but a statutory consequence flowing from the rules themselves.

9. It is also well settled that the principle of “no work – no pay” applies where an employee has not discharged duties and is not fully exonerated. In the present case, the applicant admittedly did not render service during the disputed period, and the circumstances do not justify carving out any exception in his favour. The contention that denial of back wages amounts to double punishment or violation of principles of natural justice is misconceived, as the regulation of the period as leave without pay is not a punishment but a lawful administrative determination under the service rules. The record further reveals that the applicant has already been extended all other by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 13 :: TA 7441/2021

service benefits, including promotion from the due date, thereby negativing any allegation of discrimination or hostile treatment.

10. This Tribunal, while exercising jurisdiction of judicial review, does not sit in appeal over administrative decisions taken in accordance with statutory rules unless such decisions are shown to be perverse, illegal, or arbitrary. No such infirmity has been demonstrated in the present case. The applicant, in essence, seeks re-agitation of a settled issue and claims monetary benefits for a period during which he admittedly did not perform duties and was not fully exonerated. Such a claim has no legal foundation.

11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Tribunal finds no merit in the Transfer Application. The action of the respondents in denying monetary benefits for the disputed period is legal, justified, and in consonance with the applicable service rules and settled principles of law. Accordingly, T.A. No. 7441/2021 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) Administrative Member

Judicial Member

/harshit/

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV