Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010292852019 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/8944/2019 CONSTABLE G.D. BIKASH CHANDRA NATH FORCE NO. 031527768, S/O- SISIR NATH, R/O- SULIAKATA, KUMURIA, SORBHOG, BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781317 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA 4 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 110001 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF CENTRAL GOVT OFFICE COMPLEX NEW DELHI- 110003 3:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE RANGE CRPF RANCHI JHARKHAND PIN- 834004 4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GROUP CENTRE CRPF GUWAHATI KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781023 5:COMMANDANT 84 BN CRPF AT LOCATION (TO BE SERVED THROUGH THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE Page No.# 2/8 RANGE CRPF RANCHI JHARKHAND PIN- 83400 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R MAZUMDAR, MRS P RAI,MR H BEZBARUA,MR. U SARMA,MS. P K DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MR. S S ROY – B E F O R E – HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. D. Gogoi Advocate Advocate for the respondents : Mr. S.S. Roy CGC Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment : 18.12.2025 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : No. Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Roy, learned CGC for the respondents. 2) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.06.2017, which was issued by the Director General of Central Reserve Police Page No.# 3/8 Force reinstating the writ petitioner in service as Constable (GD) subject to the outcome of writ appeal being WA No. 280 of 2016 (which was pending at the relevant point of time). By the said order, the petitioner was reinstated in service in terms of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in WP(C) No.451 of 2010 and it was further held that he is not entitled to back wages and the intervening period that is, the date of removal from service till reinstatement is treated as period “not spent on duty”, which however, is condoned for the purpose of pension under Rule 25 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. While the petitioner was serving as Constable (GD), there was a departmental proceeding initiated against the writ petitioner, pursuant to which he was dismissed from service. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being No.451/2010, challenging the order of dismissal. The writ petition came to be allowed by directing the petitioner to be reinstated in service, but without any back wages. 3) The Union being aggrieved by the appeal preferred a Writ Appeal being WA No.280 of 2016. Although, the appeal was admitted, but no interim order was issued. Being aggrieved the Union carried the matter to the Apex Court but there was no interim order granted for stay of the judgment. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition filed by the Union was dismissed, giving liberty to the Union to approach the High Court to produce the relevant reports and seek modifications of the impugned order. 4) The contempt petition which was filed by the present writ petitioner for non-compliance of the directions contained in the order dated 10.04.2015 passed in WP(C) No.451/2010, which was also filed by the writ petitioner. The Apex Court declined to accept the submission of the Union that the contempt Page No.# 4/8 proceedings should be stayed. Thereafter, by order dated 16.06.2017, which is impugned in the present writ petition, the respondent authorities passed the order of reinstating the writ petitioner in terms of the order judgment and order dated 10.04.2015 passed in WP(C) No.451/2010. However, it was ordered that the intervening period that is the date of removal from service till reinstatement was to be treated as period “period not spent on duty”, which period, however, was to be covered for the purposes of pension. Subsequently, the writ appeal being WA No.280 of 2016 came to be dismissed and the judgment and order of the Single Bench dated 10.04.2015 passed in WP(C) No.451/2010 was upheld. He represented before the authorities concerned that he was getting lesser amount of basic pay as compared to his juniors and appealed before the higher authorities to rectify the same. That not having been done, the present writ petition has been filed. 5) The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the pleadings available on record have been carefully perused. The Co-ordinate bench by order dated 10.04.2015, passed in WP(C) No.451/2010, while allowing the writ petition interfered with the order of penalty, which was affirmed by the appellate authority, set aside and quashed. 6) The petitioner claims to belong to OBC category at the time when he was recruited into service. Subsequently, the authorities came to be informed from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta that the certificate was issued on the basis of wrong information furnished by the petitioner. In view of such a report, proceedings were initiated and were concluded ultimately, the penalty of dismissal from service was instituted. The petitioner approached the Court by filing WP(C) No.451/2010, the Co-ordinate Bench, upon examining the matter in Page No.# 5/8 its entirety, came to the conclusion that the dismissal of the petitioner was contrary to the provisions of law, as the procedure prescribed by the Apex court in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 for examination of certificates of reserved category, the candidates are referred to a scrutiny committee and which was never done. Consequently, the Co-ordinate Bench, by judgment and order dated 10.04.2015 interfered and set aside with the penalty dated 09.06.2007, which came to be affirmed by the absolute authority and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service, but without back wages. The relevant paragraph is extracted below: “34. Thus, it is evident that the procedure laid down by the Apex Court in th e case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) has not been followed in the present case , which has vitiated the decision making process culminating in the decision to remove the petitioner from service. 35. Accordingly and in the light of the discussions made above, the impugned order of penalty dated 09.06.2007 as affirmed by the appellate authority on 04. 05.2009, cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside and quashed. Petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service, but without any back wages. 36. Writ petition is accordingly allowed, but without any order as to cost(s).” 7) Since the directions of the Co-ordinate Bench were not implemented, the petitioner filed a contempt petition being Cont.Cas(C) No.653/2015. 8) The Union being aggrieved approached the Division Bench of this Court by filing writ appeal being WA No.280/2016. Although the appeal was admitted, no interim order was passed suspending the directions issued by the Co-ordinate Bench. Since no interim order was passed by the Division Bench, the Union approached the Apex Court. Page No.# 6/8 9) The Apex Court by order dated 16.06.2017, while condoning the delay disposed of the Special Leave Petition declining to interfere with the orders passed by the Writ Appellate Court but granting liberty to the Union to approach the High Court and produce the records as well as seek modification of the impugned order. Thereafter, by the order dated 16.06.2017, which is impugned in the present proceedings, the petitioner was reinstated in service without back wages and the intervening period from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement it was treated to be period “period not spent on duty”, which period, however, was to be counted for the purposes of pension. Subsequently, the writ appeal being WA No.280/2016 also stood dismissed and the judgment and order passed by the Single Bench was upheld. 10) The limited question before this Court is whether the respondent authorities by the impugned order, while reinstating the writ petitioner without back wages, can further direct that the period from the date of removal from service till reinstatement is to be treated as period “period not spent on duty”. 11) The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before this Court that the direction of the Co-ordinate Bench is categorical. The penalty imposed on the petitioner was interfered with and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner, but without back wages. 12) The writ appeal filed against the said order also came to be dismissed as also the Special Leave Petition filed before the Apex Court. Therefore, the respondent authority could not have directed the intervening period to be treated to be a period “period not spent on duty”. 13) This term has created considerable hardships for the petitioner inasmuch Page No.# 7/8 as the increments and all other financial benefits to the petitioner have been deprived and as a consequence thereof, his basic pay is lower than his other colleagues. It is therefore submitted that the writ petition be allowed and the petitioner's entitlement for pay and other service benefits, with effect from the date he was removed from service till reinstatement is to be granted to the petitioner without any restriction. 14) The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order does not require interference as there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed. The authorities have reinstated the petitioner and since he was directed to be not entitled to pay back wages, the intervening period was treated to be period “period not spent on duty”. 15) Going back to the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench, it is clear that the writ petition was allowed whereby the penalty imposed was set aside with a further direction to the respondents to reinstate the writ petitioner but without payment of back wages. The learned counsel for the petitioner had attempted to persuade this Court that automatic denial of back wages is not contemplated under service jurisprudence and in view of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and Ors. reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 and other subsequent judgments, the Court has to determine the facts and circumstances before restraining the petitioner from his entitlement to back wages. 16) However, the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench having attained finality, there is no scope for this Court to re-examine the judgment or revisit the issues that were assailed and adjudicated upon therein. A judgment must be read for what it actually decides; it is not a statute that calls for interpretation. Page No.# 8/8 17) The writ appeal and also the Special Leave Petition filed by the Union came to be dismissed and thereby, the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench has attained finality over the years. Therefore, this Court is of the view that once a direction of the Court is issued and the same is upheld and sustained by higher Courts, unless under the procedure prescribed under law, by filing a review, the order is sought to be recalled or reviewed, no authority, much less the respondents, will be at liberty to interpret the judgment or judgments rendered by Constitutional Courts as per their understanding. 18) The judgments rendered by the Courts are to be enforced and implemented. The authorities are not entitled in law to attempt to interpret any judgment as per their understanding. If any clarification is required with regard to such directions, the only course open is to approach the Court by filing appropriate applications, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law. Under such circumstances, this writ petition stands allowed, directing the respondents to release all service benefits payable to the petitioner, including those relating to the intervening period from the date of his removal till the date of his reinstatement. The respondents are only entitled to withhold the back wages as permitted to be done by the Co-ordinate Bench vide the judgment and order dated 10.04.2015. It is needless to say, stoppage of back wages will not result in any break in service. 19) Accordingly, this writ petition allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant