Regularization of period of suspension - reg.
Vasudevan
(Querist) 19 February 2026
This query is : Resolved
Respected Learned Expert, I am retired Central Government servant. During the service period, I had undergone suspension for a criminal case which has been acquitted thereafter. The Competent Authority is pleased to pass an order to regularise the suspension period as follows: "period of suspension from 03.07.2008 to 31.03.2009 shall be converted into leave of any kind due and admissible as per FR 54-b(7) read with FR-54-B(5)". Thereafter, the subordinate authority has treated the period as EOL. Whether, I am entitle for annual increment based on the above order. Any other monetary benefits is applicable to me. Kindly clarify please. With utmost thanks to one and all in the Forum of Learned Experts.
kavksatyanarayana
(Expert) 19 February 2026
When there is no leave of any kind to such an employee, the leave will be treated as EOL and the pay will not be given for EOL. During the EOL period, increments will not be sanctioned.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 20 February 2026
When the department regularizes the EOL period, it effectively treats that period as "duty" or as authorized leave that does not break service continuity. Courts have consistently held that if a criminal case ends in acquittal, the employee is entitled to all consequential benefits, including notional increments and, in some cases, back wages. Generally, EOL without medical certificate breaks the continuity for calculating the 6-month qualifying service required for an annual increment (usually on 1st July).
However, when the EOL is forced upon the employee due to a criminal case (which is later proved baseless via acquittal), the regularization of that period is treated as service for increments.
The department's regularization of the EOL period under the mentioned rules acts as a rectification of the break in service.
Vasudevan
(Querist) 20 February 2026
Much obliged by the response of Learned Experts. Learned Expert Shri T. Kalaiselvan sir, I pray to mention the rule or ciruclar/directions relevant to qualify for the notional inrement please. Thank you very much sir.
kavksatyanarayana
(Expert) 20 February 2026
Based on CCS (Leave) Rules, a period treated as Extraordinary Leave (EOL) by the appointing authority from July 1, 2008, to March 31, 2009, generally constitutes a break in qualifying service for increments and pension. It does not automatically trigger specific provisions like Rule 54-B unless it was specifically categorised as dies-non or a period of suspension, rather than authorised EOL. If the EOL was not for medical reasons, pursuing higher technical studies, or due to insufficient leave, it results in the postponement of the next increment. EOL without a medical certificate generally does not count as qualifying service for pension. Rule 54-B deals with payment of pay and allowances during suspension and treatment of that period. If the period 1.7.2008 to 31.03.2009 was officially granted as EOL (even if retrospectively), it is not considered a period of suspension under 54-B, but rather a break in service.
Vasudevan
(Querist) 20 February 2026
Repected Learned Expert Shri KAVK Satyanarayana, even though the disciplinary/judicial proceedings were ended in acquittal, the Competent Authority ha treated the said supension period as EOL without my pecific request as I had already retired. So the EOL is not sanctioned at my request but the Competent Authority has sanctioned on his own accord. In the above circumstances, if no increment is granted, may I please be known what is the defference betwee period "not spent on duty" and "regularised under FR-54B (5) read with FR 54B(7)". As far as salary is concerned, already paid in terms of sunsistence allowance. Hence there may no extra penny on this issue. My quary i only on the entitlement of increment during the period of EOL sanctioned by the authority under FR 54B (5) read with FR 54 B(7). Kindly share your opinion. Much obliged please.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 21 February 2026
When the position of law is clear, you don't have to depend on the circulars in this regard.
Dr. J C Vashista
(Expert) 21 February 2026
Very well analysed, opined and advised by learned senior experts, I concur and appreciate their acumen.
In your case you are entitled for all consequential benefits as if you were "on duty".
Vasudevan
(Querist) 21 February 2026
Respected Learned Expert Shri Dr. J C Vashista, kindly share the particular rule provision/judgment or any other authority to claim for "on duty" as my department is not paying the increment benefits. I am tired of legal battle on this issue. Kindly forgive me to disturb you in the matter and oblige. Learned Expert Shri T. Kalaielvan, please share the concerned rule provision for claiming increment. Once again thanks to one and all in the Forum.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 22 February 2026
Instead of still depending on the public forums like this, you may better consult an expert lawyer either from this website or outside to have the proper opinion and further advice on the terms of chosen advocate.
Vasudevan
(Querist) 22 February 2026
Much obliged for the response of Learned Expert Shri T. Kalaiselvan. Thank you very much sir.
Dr. J C Vashista
(Expert) 23 February 2026
I concur with learned senior expert Mr. T Kalaiselvan.
sakthi
(Expert) 23 February 2026
Much obliged for the response of Learned Expert Dr.J.C. Vashita. Thank you very much sir.
