APHC010298552024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3527] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT PETITION NO: 15071/2024 Between: 1. T MUNIKRISHNAIAH DIED, (DIED) HIS L.R. 2. P. SANTHA KUMARI, W/O. T. MUNIKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC-HOUSE WIFE, R/O 13-104, L.B. NAGARM.R.PALLI (URBAN), CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 502. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, O/O. THE GENERAL MANAGER, ZONAL OFFICER, RAIL NILAYAM, SECUNDERABAD. 2. THE CHIEF OPERATING MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, RAIL NILAYAM, SECUNDERABAD. 3. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, GUNTAKAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL OPERATING MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, GUNTAKAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 5. THE DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, O/O. SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUT CENTRAL RAILWAY, GUNTAKAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 2 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toMay be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the order in O.A. No. 020/01862/2015 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, at Hyderabad and set aside the order dated. 12.02.2024 in O.A. No. 020/01862/2015 and consequently direct the respondents to pay the salary and other allowances for the intervening period from the date of removal till the reinstatement of the 1st petitioner into service and treat the period of duty and pay other consequential benefits and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay all the consequential benefits as per the orders in O.A. No. 622 of 2011 dt.29.10.2011, pending disposal of the above writ petitioner, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) 3 The Court made the following Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Krishna Mohan) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition was filed against the order in O.A. No.1862 of 2015 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, at Hyderabad dated 12.02.2024 dismissing the O.A. for the relief sought by the applicant therein. Aggrieved by the same, the said applicant filed this writ petition as L.R. of the deceased. 3. The deceased employee earlier approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in O.A. No.622 of 2011 to set aside the impugned order of the 3rd respondent therein dated 15.04.2010 imposing penalty of removal of the applicant therein from service and modification of the same by the 2nd respondent therein vide order dated 07.04.2011 the penalty order of removal from service to that of reduction of pay at the minimum pay Rs.9300/- + GP Rs.4600/- in pay band Rs.9300- 34800 + GP Rs.4600/- for a period of three years (Recurring) and also treating the intervening period from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement into service as dies-non. 4. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed the order on merits setting aside the impugned penalty order dated 15.04.2010 issued by the disciplinary authority “the removal of the applicant from service” and 4 the order of the appellate authority dated 07.04.2011 “modifying the penalty order of the disciplinary authority to that of reduction of pay”. In the result, the impugned orders dated 15.04.2010 and 07.04.2011 were quashed and set aside by declaring that the applicant therein is entitled for all consequential benefits as per rules. Consequently, the applicant therein was reinstated into service but the period from removal of service to reinstatement into service was not considered for the purpose of salary and other benefits/ monetary benefits. 5. Since the employee died, his legal representative i.e., the wife of the deceased employee filed the subsequent O.A. No.1862 of 2015 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench claiming payment of salary and other allowances admissible to the deceased employee for the intervening period from the date of the removal till reinstatement of the applicant therein into duty as period of duty which constitute as consequential benefits as referred in O.A.No.132 of 2011 dated 21.02.2011. 6. The Tribunal after hearing both parties on merits, dismissed the claim of the applicant therein/ petitioner herein for the relief sought by the applicant. The Tribunal appreciated the fact that the respondents therein treated the said period between 22.04.2010 till 04.07.2011 and regularized the same against the leave due in accordance with Clause (ii) of Rule 1344 (2) read with Sub-rule (5) of Rule 1343 of IREC. It further observed that mere observation of consequential benefits per se does not include the back 5 wages. The Tribunal also considered the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7011 of 2008 dated 02.12.2008 and observed that when the issue has been considered at length in the earlier round of litigation, though the Tribunal set aside the penalty order with consequential benefit, in its considered view, the applicant is not eligible for the relief sought. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also filed counter in this writ petition and filed the said rules which is a referred note dated 08.12.2005 of the 5th respondent. The rule 1344(2)(ii) of IREC Vol.II reads as under: “Rule 1344(2)(ii) of IREC Vol.II stipulates that the period intervening between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement including the period of suspension preceding such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be and the date of judgment of the court shall be regularized in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-rule (5) of rule 1343. Rule 1343(5) of IREC, in a case falling under sub rule (4), the period of absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, shall not be treated as a period spent on duty, unless the competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specific purpose, provided that if the railway servant so desires such authority may direct that the period of absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, shall be converted into leave of any kind due and admissible to the railway servant”. 8. From the above said reading of the relevant rules, it is clear with respect to the entitlement of the employee for the period of absence including the period between the date of removal and date of reinstatement, 6 as the Tribunal rightly appreciated the facts and legal position, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Tribunal. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN __________________________________ JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA 22.07.2025 NNN