The denial of back wages to an acquitted employee was unjustified, as services should be recognized from the date of other staff's takeover.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

The instant petition has been filed for following substantive reliefs:

“a. order passed by the respondents whereby the claim of the applicant has been rejected for back wages may kindly be quashed and set aside and the applicant my kindly be held entitled for the back wages from the date when the respondents have decided to take over the service of the applicant by issuing notification dated 19-9-2005 when the Schools and the service of the employees working therein were ordered to be taken over.

b. Or in the alternative if the applicant is not entitled for the bake wages from the date of issuance of notification i.e. 19-9-2005 then the applicant may kindly be held entitled for back wages from 10th May 2006 when the service of the other employees along-with applicant has been taken over.

c. Or In the alternative if the applicant is not entitled for the back wages then the respondents may kindly be directed to pay subsistence allowance to the applicant from the date of his suspension as per the rules.”

2. Facts, in brief, are that the Public High School, Charuru, District Una was an institution covered under Grant-in- aid Rules of the State Government and was accordingly getting 95% aid since 1993. The petitioner was working as Art and Craft teacher (D.M.) in the said school since 1988.

3. In 2005, the State Government took a decision to take over a number of schools covered under Grant-in-aid Rules along with services of the staff of such schools. Public High School, Charuru was also included.

4. On 10.05.2006, the State Government issued orders for taking over services of staff working in 10 schools including Public High School, Charuru. Though, the name of petitioner was also reflected, however, it was ordered that his service may not be taken over on account of his suspension w.e.f. 10.01.2006 as a result of his involvement in a criminal case.

5. The fact of the matter is that on 04.01.2006, a case under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 323 of IPC had been registered at Police Station, Una, in which the petitioner was arrayed as one of the accused. Later, Section 302 IPC was also added when victim Kesar Singh succumbed to injuries. The petitioner was arrested and as a consequence of his incarceration, the Management Committee of Public High School, Charuru had ordered his suspension vide resolution dated 10.02.2006. Accordingly, the petitioner had been put under suspension w.e.f. 28.02.2006.

6. On trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una convicted the petitioner, however, he was acquitted by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 10.07.2013, passed in Criminal Appeal No.257 of 2007. The judgment passed by this Court attained finality.

7. In above background, the services of the petitioner were not taken over. After acquittal, the petitioner made a representation to respondents No.1 to 3 to take over his services from the date when the services of other staff of the school were taken over and to pay him the back wages. Respondent No.2, vide communication dated 30.05.2014 addressed to respondent No.3, conveyed the decision dated 20.5.2013 taken by the State Government to take over the services of the petitioner from the date when the services of other staff of Public High School Charuru were taken over. The request of the petitioner for benefit of back wages was denied.

8. Accordingly, respondent No.3 issued office order dated 03.07.2014, Annexure A-8, whereby the services of petitioner as D.M. were ordered to be taken over and he was posted in Government Senior Secondary School, Telmehra in the pay scale of Rs.10300-34800, Grade Pay of Rs.3200/- It was, however, clarified that the petitioner would not be entitled to back wages in view of judgment in SLP(C) No.22583 of 1996 decided on 28.10.1996. The petitioner accepted the appointment, but filed the Original Application No.4761 of 2016 before the erstwhile, H.P. State Administrative Tribunal for the reliefs as noticed above. After abolition of t