JUDGMENT :

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

1. Whether the Appellant/employee who was placed under suspension for having detained in judicial custody (in accordance with the rules) is entitled to get full salary and allowances for the period he was kept out of service as a matter of right, on his reinstatement pursuant to the acquittal in the criminal case, is the point to be considered. The answer given in the 'Negative' by the learned Single Judge confining the relief only to payment of subsistence allowance, continuity of service and such other benefits including the notional fixation, (denying the actual monetary benefits during the intervening period as ordered by the Department) is put to challenge in this appeal.

2. The sequence of events shows that the Appellant who got appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grami, Grade II on 27.01.2007 was posted in the Middle School, Kacholapara, Janpad Panchayat, Pratapur, District Surguja. After completion of probation, he was confirmed/regularized. While so, he was arrested on 15.04.2013 in connection with Crime No. 4 of 2013 of the Mahila Thana, Ambikapur, District Surguja for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 294, 323 and 506-II of the Indian Penal Code and was kept in judicial custody, thus leading to suspension of the Appellant on 03.05.2013 by the 4th Respondent. On conclusion of the trial, the Appellant came to be acquitted as per Annexure P/3 judgment dated 29.04.2016; pursuant to which he was reinstated in service as per Annexure P/4 order dated 30.05.2016 passed by the 4th Respondent. Since the monetary benefits were not granted (other than subsistence allowance), representation was preferred which came to be rejected as per Annexure P/1 order dated 04.02.2019. This was put to challenge in the writ petition, contending that the Appellant/Petitioner was entitled to have full salary and allowances during the period of suspension in view of the subsequent acquittal and reinstatement.

3. The learned Single Judge considered the matter and held that denial of the salary and other benefits (except the subsistence allowance), applying the principle of 'no work - no pay', was not liable to be interdicted in view of the undisputed facts and figures leading to the arrest, registration of a criminal case and the subsequent events. It was also observed that the Department had immediately revoked the order of suspension and reinstated the Appellant in service, pursuant to the acquittal ordered by the Trial Court in the previous month. The learned Single Judge further observed that the Petitioner had not discharged any duty during the said period and further that there was no allegation of any malafides; simultaneously holding that the Petitioner would be getting all the benefits by way of notional fixation.

4. Shri Maheshwari, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the denial of salary and other benefits despite the acquittal ordered by the competent Trial Court and reinstatement by the 4th Respondent, who had not initiated any disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant, is not correct and that the entire monetary benefits ought to have been ordered to be released. Reliance is sought to be placed on a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 23.11.2000 in Hukam Singh v. State of Haryana & Another.

5. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State/Respondents submits that the payment of monetary benefits is not automatic and that the law is well settled by the Apex Court. Some of the decisions which have been relied on by the Respondents have been adverted to by the learned Judge. It is also pointed out that the legality of the claim under similar circumstance has already been considered by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 329 of 2019 (Rakesh Kumar Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) and as per the judgment dated 17.07.2019, a categoric finding has been given to the eff