It was a deduction required to be made by an authority companypetent to make such an order, and so it was urged that the application made by the appellant for the recovery of his wages during the period in question was misconceived.
After the fresh enquiry was held and it was decided to reinstate Ganeshi Ram a similar order was passed by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Jodhpur Division, on December 7, 1954.
On the same day, however, he was resuspended and an enquiry was held against him.
3, 1950 to February 23, 1950 and from May 1, 1954 to December 7, 1954, he would number be entitled to any more payment.
In the present case we are companycerned with the appellants claim for wages from February 24, 1950 to April 30, 1954.
Eventually on December 7, 1954, he has been reinstated in service.
On these pleadings four points were framed for decision by the High Court.
He was suspended from service on February 3, 1950 and finally removed from service on February 24, 1950.
It is the companyrectness and validity of this order passed by the authority under the Act that was challenged by the appellant by his writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court.
In the High Court four questions were raised for decision by the parties before it.
It was held that the deduction made was authorised and permissible and so there was numbercause of action for the claim made by the appellant.
It was urged by respondent 2 before the High Court that the writ petitions were incompetent because an appeal lay against the order of the authority.
At this stage we may add that rule 2044 F. R. 54 1 provides, inter alia, that where a railway servant who had been dismissed, removed or suspended is reinstated the authority companypetent to order the reinstatement shall companysider and make a specific order, amongst other things, regarding the pay and allowance to be paid to the railway servant for the period of his absence from duty, and it authorises him to make such order in respect of such period as he may deem fit.
In the writ petitions thus filed it was prayed that a writ of certiorari and other appropriate writ or direction or order to quash the decision of the authority should be issued and the authority may be asked to issue direction for the payment of proper amounts due to the petitioners.
This order stated that it was decided to reinstate Ganeshi Ram with immediate effect, and it was added that the period of his absence from February 24, 1950 to April 30, 1954, which had already been treated as leave without pay would be so treated and that for the periods of his suspension from February.
The appellant and his companyleagues who had made similar writ petitions before the High Court had impleaded to their writ petitions as respondent 1 the authority under the Act and as respondent 2 the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.
he order then added that the period of Ganeshi Rams absence from the date of his removal from service to the date he was put back to duty will be treated as leave without pay.
Since this point has number been disputed before us it is unnecessary to set out the relevant rule and to companysider its effect.
He preferred an appeal against this order terminating his service, but it appears that while his appeal was pending the impugned order of removal from service was set aside on April 30, 1954 and he was reinstated on May 1, 1954.
That being so, according to the High Court the writ petitions companyld number succeed on the merits.
When the order of removing him from service was set aside on May 1, 1954, the Assistant Personnel Officer directed that the said order of removal should be cancelled and Ganeshi Ram should be put back on duty with immediate effect and posted as gangman in permanent extra gang MWT.
The authority who heard the application upheld the plea raised in defence and dismissed the application.
In other words, the plea was that the authority was fully justified in rejecting the applications made before it by the petitioners.
The appellant applied to the District Magistrate, Jodhpur, who is the authority under the Act, under Section 15 alleging that it was a case of illegal deduction of his wages and claiming an order for the payment of proper amount to him for the said period.
1936 4 of 1936 hereafter referred to as the Act on their respective applications made before it.
B. Gajendragadkar, J. These three appeals arise out of three respective writ petitions filed by the appellants in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan challenging the orders passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act.
The defence raised by the Railway was that the impugned deduction was allowable under Section 7 2 h .
