Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 210
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Nirmaljit Kaur, J.
Naresh Kumar Mehta - Appellant
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. - Respondents
CWP No.16054 of 2015
Decided On : 18-02-2020
Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Anupama Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in this judgment is that a suspended employee who is later acquitted is entitled to full pay and allowances for the suspension period, and past service can be considered as qualifying period for pension.
Headnote:
The court referred to Rules 7.3 and 7.5 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume I, which govern the suspension period. The court also referred to Rules 9.14, 9.15, 2.2(b), and 2.2(c) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II, which govern pension calculation and withholding of benefits during pending proceedings. The court relied on previous judgments, including the case of Union of India and others v. Jaipal Singh, 2004 (1) SCT 108, and the case of Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.26122 of 2013.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was suspended from service due to his involvement in a criminal case. He was later acquitted. The petitioner also sought to count his past service as qualifying period for pension. The court relied on previous judgments and held in favor of the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed relevant statutory provisions and previous judgments to determine the petitioner's entitlement to full pay and allowances for the suspension period, as well as the inclusion of past service for pension calculation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner is entitled to full pay and allowances for the suspension period and that his past service should be considered as qualifying period for pension.
Result: The court allowed the writ petition and ordered the respondents to revise the petitioner's pension and pay the arrears with interest.
JUDGMENT
Nirmaljit Kaur, J. - The first prayer in the present writ petition is that the suspension period of the petitioner from 09.08.2005 to 22.03.2006 be considered as duty period for all intents and purposes.
2. The petitioner was suspended from service on 09.08.2005 due to his involvement in a criminal case. He was reinstated on 17.03.2006 and joined on 23.03.2006. Subsequently, he was acquitted by the Special Judge, Jhajjar, vide order and judgment dated 06.12.2011.
3. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Surjit Singh v. State of Haryana and another , CWP No.1326 of 2013, decided on 30.04.2015. While relying on the various judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court including the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Jaipal Singh, 2004 (1) SCT 108 as also the judgment rendered in the case of Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana and others , CWP No.26122 of 2013, against which LPA No.514 of 2014 was also dismissed, the learned Single Bench in the case of Surjit Singh (supra) held that the respondents were bound to consider the suspension period as a duty period for all intent purposes by holding in para Nos.19 and 20 as under:-
'19. The criminal trial that the present petitioner has faced and which has finally culminated in his acquittal was in relation to allegations having direct nexus with the work and functions in the course of his employment. The petitioner having been absolved of such allegations and charges he would be vested with the right to full pay and salary for the period he remained out of service by applying the ratio of aforenoticed judgments and in the light of the relevant statutory provisions i.e. Rules 7.3 and 7.5 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume I, as applicable to the State of Haryana.
20. For the reasons recorded above, writ petition is allowed. Order dated 16.9.2011, Annexure P2, is modified to the extent that the petitioner is held entitled to full pay and allowances for the period that he had remained out of service on account of his conviction. Let such benefit be calculated and released to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.'
4. No legal proposition contrary to the same has been pointed out. Accordingly, the first prayer of the petitioner deserves to be allowed and the respondents shall now consider and accordingly pass appropriate order qua the suspension period from 09.08.2005 to 22.03.2006 as duty period.
5. The second prayer of the petitioner is to count his service from 20.04.1973 to 11.09.1978 as qualifying period for the purpose of pension while he was working in the Food and Supply Department.
6. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in the cases of Dev Dutt v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula through its Chief Administrator and others , CWP No.20912 of 2008, decided on 05.09.2011 and Puran Singh v. State of Haryana and others , CWP No.6966 of 2013, decided on 06.04.2015, placed on record as Annexures P-3 & P-4 to contend that the case of the petitioner is identical. It is not disputed that the review against the judgment rendered in the case of Dev Dutt (supra) has also been dismissed and neither any LPA was filed. Meaning thereby, the said judgments have attained finality.
7. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the respondents is that it was a fresh appointment and therefore, the past services rendered by the petitioner cannot be counted. However, the said argument cannot be sustained in the facts of the present case. Admittedly, the petitioner too was retrenched from the Food and Supply Department but was finally absorbed in the present department on 14.06.1979.
8. Moreover, it is not disputed that the petitioner namely Dev Dutt in the case of Dev Dutt (supra) as well as the petitioner namely Puran Singh in the case of Puran Singh (supra), were also appointed in HUDA alongwith the
