( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby a writ petition filed by the appellant herein challenging an order granting only 50% back wages during the period of his suspension has been dismissed.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was working as Lower Division Clerk in the MTNL. He was arrested in connection with FIR No. 268/1985 for an offence punishable under section 376/302 of the IPC. He was on that basis placed under suspension in september 1985. An Additional Sessions Judge before whom the petitioner was tried for the offences aforementioned, eventually convicted and sentenced him to life imprisonment holding that the charge of rape with murder was established against the petitioner.

( 3 ) IN an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order of conviction and sentence, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana acquitted the petitioner in terms of a judgment dated 4th October, 1993. Shortly thereafter, the petitioner represented to the respondent for revocation of his suspension and reinstatement in service. This was followed by reminders and eventually a legal notice seeking the petitioner's reinstatement. In the meantime, Mr. Khazan Singh, the father of the deceased preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the order of acquittal passed by the High Court which was finally dismissed by the Supreme Court in February, 2003.

( 4 ) THE petitioner once again represented for his reinstatement and then filed WP (C) No. 6698/2003 in this Court. The said petition was disposed of by a single Bench of this Court on 6th December, 2004 taking note of the revocation of the order of suspension and the reinstatement of the petitioner. The Court also took note of the submission made on behalf of the respondent that the competent authority would take a decision regarding the treatment to be given during the period of suspension to the petitioner and payment of back wages to him.

( 5 ) CONSEQUENT upon the order passed by the Court, the respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner in which it proposed to treat the subsistence allowance already paid to the petitioner from 12. 09. 85 to 31. 08. 92 as the final payment. It also proposed to pay a proportionate amount equal to 50% of the basic pay along with other allowances to the petitioner for the period spent under suspension from 01. 09. 92 to 19. 11. 94 and called upon the petitioner to make a representation against the proposed action. The petitioner appears to have submitted his reply upon consideration whereof, the respondents passed an order on 1st March, 2005 granting 50% of the basic pay along with admissible allowances under FR 54-B (5) to the petitioner for the period 1. 9. 92 to 19. 11. 04 and treating the subsistence allowance already paid for the period 12. 09. 85 to 31. 08. 92 as the final payment.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the order aforementioned, the petitioner filed WP (C) No. 4924/2005 in which he assailed the correctness of the view taken by the respondents and sought a mandamus directing payment of full back wages to the petitioner from the date he was placed under suspension with interest and also for grant of promotion to the next higher post. This petition was opposed by the respondent on several grounds and was eventually disposed of by the learned single Judge in terms of the order impugned in the present appeal. The learned single Judge held that grant of back wages or salary would depend upon the circumstances of each case and that the decision taken by the respondent not to pay full back wages could not be described as arbitrary. The Court further held that a writ Court could not examine the validity of an administrative decision and on a subjective analysis, hold that the view taken by the authority was arbitrary. The present appeal as already noticed earlier assails the correctness of the above order.

( 7 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document