Reinstatement after acquittal does not automatically entitle a dismissed employee to back wages for the dismissal period, particularly if the dismissal was grounded on conviction.

JUDGMENT :

BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd. 16.08.2024 so passed by Government-Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-10. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of salary for the period he remained out of employment because of the order of dismissal passed on 16.06.2012 with the order of reinstatement passed on 31.07.2020 under Annexure-4 was rejected.

4. It is contended that Petitioner while continuing in service, because of his conviction and sentence in a vigilance proceeding, Petitioner was dismissed from his services vide order dtd.16.06.2012 under Annexuxre-2. However, Petitioner was acquitted by this Court vide its judgment dtd.11.09.2019 under Annexure-3. After his acquittal by this Court vide the aforesaid judgment, petitioner was reinstated in his services vide order dtd.31.07.2020 under Annexure-4. After such reinstatement, Petitioner was posted as Deputy Collector, Collectorate, Khurda vide Notification dtd.03.09.2020 under Annexure-5. Not only that vide Notification dtd.10.02.2021 under Annexure-6, Petitioner was extended with the benefit of promotion on notional basis to the rank of OAS, Grade-A(SB) w.e.f. 09.05.2011 on ad hoc basis.

4.1. However, in the meantime, Petitioner claiming payment of the salary for the period he remained out of employment because of the order of dismissal, made a detailed representation before Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-8. As no decision was taken on such claim of the Petitioner, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No.38938 of 2023. This Court vide order dtd.07.12.2023 when directed Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim, vide the impugned order dtd.16.08.2024 under Annexure-10, Petitioner though was extended with all consequential service benefits, but he was denied the benefit of salary for the period he remained out of employment because of the order of dismissal passed on 20.06.2012 and the order of reinstatement passed on 31.07.2020.

4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently contended that since Petitioner because of his conviction and sentence was dismissed vide order dtd.16.06.2012 and after his acquittal he was reinstated vide order dtd.31.07.2020, while extending all consequential service benefits, Petitioner should also have been allowed the benefit of pay and allowance for the period he remained out of employment.

4.3. In support of his submission, reliance was placed to a decision of this Court passed in W.A. No.441 of 2025. Placing reliance on the said judgment, it is contended that Petitioner’s claim is squarely covered by the said order and Petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of salary for the period he remained out of employment, because of the illegal order of dismissal passed on 16.06.2012 under Annexure-2. It is also contended that once Petitioner was acquitted in the vigilance proceeding by this Court in its judgment dtd.11.09.2019 and Petitioner was reinstated vide order dtd.31.07.2020 under Annexure-4, there is no reason not to pay the salary as due and admissible. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

5. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opposite Party No.1.

5.1. It is contended that because of his conviction and sentence in the vigilance proceeding vide judgment dtd.10.02.2012 in T.R. Case No.77 of 2007 arising out of GR Case No.20 of 1993 (V) by the learned Special Judge, (Vigilance) Jeypore, Petitio