Lilu Sharma vs Delhi Development Authority

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant was employed as Beldar on work charge basis in the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in the year 1984. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 21.05.1990, on account of registration of a case against him by the CBI. It is stated that the criminal case ended in acquittal of the applicant on 30.04.2015. He was reinstated into service on 06.03.2017 and ever since then he made representations, for deciding the manner, in which the period of suspension must be treated. He retired from service on 29.02.2020. He got issued a notice on 02.12.2020, requiring the respondents to decide the said issue. Stating that the respondents did not take any steps in this behalf, the applicant filed this OA with a prayer to direct the respondents to pass an order as to the manner in which the period of suspension between 01.05.1990 and 16.03.2017 must be treated. The office raised an objection as to the limitation and accordingly, he filed MA No.799/2021 in compliance of the same. However, we are of the view that there is no delay since the representation of the applicant was still pending. MA No.799/2021, is accordingly allowed.

We heard Shri Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

The applicant states that he was placed under suspension between 01.05.1990 and 06.03.2017. He retired from service in the recent past. In case the suspension was on account of pendency of the criminal case, an order needs to be passed, as to the manner in which the period of suspension must be treated. Once the criminal case ended in acquittal, the respondents cannot remain indifferent on the representations made by the applicant from time to time.

We, therefore, dispose of the OA, directing the respondents to pass orders as to the manner, in which the period during which the applicant remained under suspension, must be treated, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

There shall be no orders as to costs.