D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner was suspended pending enquiry against him along with many others. By an order dated 3rd May, 1988, the order of suspension was withdrawn. The said order does not indicate that the enquiry was withdrawn or dropped. The withdrawal of the order of suspension was provisional pending disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, there was nothing to prevent the respondents to proceed with the enquiry. It further seems that the respondents were in contemplation of proceeding with the enquiry. However, the petitioner had challenged the said decision to proceed with the said enquiry and the initiation of the enquiry against him as well as the order of suspension, in Writ Petition No. C.C. 16718 (W) of 1985. During the pendency of the writ petition on the enquiry could not be concluded. No order to find the guilt or otherwise was ever passed in the disciplinary proceeding. However, in the meantime, the petitioner had retired. Till retirement the enquiry proceeding remained in concluded. In view of such circumstances, the said writ petition was disposed of as infructuous by order dated 7th July, 1993 with an observation "that all retirement benefits of the petitioner including gratuity etc. (misprinted as granting) be released by eight weeks from the date of communication of the order". Pursuant to the said order all retirement benefits have since been paid by the respondents.
(2.) Mr. Thakurdas Roychowdhury, learned Counsel for the respondents contends that the question of payment of difference for the period during which the petitioner remained under suspension was also raised in the said proceedings but the Court did not pass any order. As such the respondents are not liable to pay the difference for the period during which the petitioner was under suspension.
(3.) In this writ petition the petitioner has claimed the difference of pay he is entitled to during the period he remained under suspension. The learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that as soon the order of suspension was withdrawn provisionally pending enquiry, the petitioner was reinstated and the period spent under suspension was subject to the result of the enquiry. If no enquiry is held and no order is passed with regard to the period spent under suspension, in that event, such period shall be deemed to be spent on service. Therefore, the petitioner shall be entitled to the difference of pay for the said period. According to her, the order passed by the Court is to be read according to its letters and spirit and nothing new can be imported in it. She contends that the Court was concerned with the retirement benefits and had, accordingly, passes such order. Omission to make any observation with regard to the period of suspension cannot be considered to mean that the petitioner's entitlement was denied. In any event, the law does not permit to deny the petitioner's entitlement. Therefore, the omission would be construed to mean as the law permits and order of the Court cannot be construed to intend which is something legally impermissible. On this ground she claimed difference of pay for the period spent under suspension.;