Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37113 of 2013 Petitioner :- Ram Briksh Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- K.D.Singh,Kamlesh Kumar,Rajesh Nath Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition no. 63532 of 2012, which came to be disposed of with a direction upon the respondents concerned to examine petitioner's representation. Consequently, claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the order impugned, dated 2nd March, 2013, passed by the Commandant 34th Battalion PAC, Varanasi.
Brief facts giving right to filing of the writ petition are that the petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of Constable in U.P. Police in 1993. While undergoing training, a complaint was made about institution of criminal proceedings under Sections 419/420 IPC, against the petitioner, and consequently his services were terminated.
It appears that the criminal proceedings ultimately ended in petitioner's acquittal. Petitioner thereafter approached the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, challenging the termination order, but his claim was rejected. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 36842 of 1999, and the writ petition has been allowed by a division bench of this Court vide following orders passed on 3.11.1999:-
"A perusal of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal as well as other Annexures shows that there was no departmental proceeding against the petitioner, and his service was terminated only on the ground of pendency of the criminal case. Since the criminal case has ended in acquittal, obviously there is now nothing against the petitioner. The position would have been different if the petitioner's service had been terminated pursuant to departmental proceedings, but that is not the case here. Since the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case obviously the termination order and the impugned judgment of the Tribunal are illegal. They are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the authority concerned.
The petition is allowed. However, it will be open for the authorities to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner if they so desire."
Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court the petitioner appears to have been reinstated and is working ever since then.
A grievance has been raised by the petitioner before the concerned authorities for grant of continuity of service and for correct fixation of his salary by taking the previous period during which petitioner remain terminated. It is this claim which has now been rejected by the Commandant by the order impugned. This order records that petitioner has not worked from 1995 to 2000 and, therefore, he would not be entitled to service benefits including continuity of service for such period.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the order of termination stood quashed, he would be entitled to all consequential benefits including continuity of service and back-wages.
Contention in that regard is opposed by learned Standing Counsel, who submits that there is no direction for grant of benefit of continuity of service and only reinstatement has been ordered by this Court in the previous judgment. Submission is that services rendered consequent upon reinstatement alone, therefore, is liable to be counted for the purpose of determining petitioner's scale of pay.
The objection raised on behalf of the respondents appears to have substance, inasmuch as, the division bench while setting aside the order of termination, as also the order of the Tribunal, merely granted relief of reinstatement to the petitioner. There is neither any direction to grant arrears of salary, nor the benefit of continuity of service has been allowed either. In such circumstances, the period from 1993/1995 to the period of reinstatement in service cannot be taken note of for determining the pay scale of the petitioner. The order passed by the Commandant, therefore, merits no interference.
The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 Ranjeet Sahu