Court held that a reinstated individual, upon acquittal and in compliance with training rules, is entitled to stipend during training and notional benefits thereafter, but not salary for unserved periods.

ORDER:

(per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

Heard Ms.Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services – I appearing for the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for direction to the respondents to implement the order dated 12.03.2013 in OA.No.5138 of 2010 (in short ‘OA’) passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (in short ‘Tribunal’).

3. The OA was filed being aggrieved from the action of the respondent No.4 therein i.e., respondent No.1 herein, in not passing final orders in pursuance of the request of respondent No.3 in OA vide proceedings Rx.No.504/Trg.3/2005, dated Nil.08.2008 on the representation of the petitioner for his reinstatement into service as APSP Constable, and for direction to the State and its authorities to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits.

4. The petitioner was selected as Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (in short ‘SCTPC’) in Andhra Pradesh Special Police (in short ‘APSP’) Battalion. During the period of his training, he was unauthorisedly absent, without leave, with effect from 26.01.2005. He was discharged from training on 06.03.2005. Later on, he was reinstated into service on 16.01.2006, but with the condition that he will be discharged if any adverse report was received against him during the verification of character and antecedents pending receipt of verification report from S.P., Guntur. Subsequently, on receipt of the verification report with respect to pending criminal case in Cr.No.52 of 2005 under Section 324 r/w. Section 34 of IPC, in which he was arrested; sent for remand and charge sheet filed in C.C.No.378 of 2005, he was again discharged on 06.03.2006, from training, facing criminal trial. He was acquitted in criminal case, before Lokadalat vide order/award dated 18.02.2006. His representation for reinstatement remained pending. So, the OA was filed for the relief, mentioned above.

5. Pursuant to the interim order passed in OA, the respondents considered the case of the petitioner but rejected the same vide memo dated 10.09.2010. 6. The OA was finally allowed on 12.09.2013 by setting aside the rejection order vide Memo No.32546/Ser.III/A1/2008, dated 10.09.2010. The respondents were also directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. The operative part reads as under in para No.6:

“6. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, O.A., is allowed and the rejection order vide Memo No.32546/Ser.III/A1/2008, dated 10.09.2010 is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant into service with all consequential benefits. No costs.”

7. The order of the Tribunal was not implemented.

8. The State respondents filed W.P.No.12506 of 2022 challenging the order of the Tribunal, belatedly with laches of 3378 days along with I.A.No.2 of 2023 which were dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench on 06.11.2023. The relevant part of judgment in para Nos.4 & 5 reads as under:

“4. The Tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction judiciously and therefore to condone the delay and laches in approaching for the relief that would not enable or vest the right on the petitioners to seek parity, as the petitioners are not an individual but a State and is