The mere pendency of a leave application or criminal appeal against an acquittal does not justify withholding consequential service benefits once an employee has been reinstated in service based on that acquittal.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner has assailed part of the order dated 26.05.2023 (Annexure-P/1), whereby though he has been reinstated in service after his acquittal in criminal cases, the respondent-authorities have denied consideration and grant of consequential service benefits, including fixation of pay, benefits of suspension period, and other attendant benefits, on the ground of pendency of a leave application filed against the acquittal.

The facts of the case, briefly stated are that the petitioner is working on the post of Lineman and is posted in the office of the respondents at Ujjain (M.P.). On account of the death of his father, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds as Lineman in the office of the Assistant Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department, Ujjain, by order dated 04.05.1995. On account of alleged irregularity in service, the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 23.02.2006, and his headquarters were fixed at the Office of Assistant Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Project Sub-Division No. 3, Ujjain Municipal Corporation, Ujjain.

Thereafter, an FIR was registered against the petitioner on 03.03.2006, followed by another FIR dated 03.09.2007. In both cases, challans were filed against the petitioner along with other accused persons. In the criminal case arising out of FIR dated 03.03.2006, the petitioner was acquitted of all charges by the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Ujjain, by judgment dated 31.10.2022. The offences alleged were under Sections 409, 420 and 467 of IPC. Similarly, in the criminal case arising out of FIR dated 03.09.2007, the learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, acquitted the petitioner from all charges by judgment dated 31.10.2022, wherein offences under Sections 409, 420, 467 and 120-B of IPC were involved. After receipt of copies of the acquittal judgments, the petitioner submitted an application dated 04.11.2022 before the competent authority seeking revocation of suspension and reinstatement in service. As no action was taken, another application was submitted on 23.11.2022.

In response thereto, the Executive Engineer passed an order dated 03.01.2023, revoking the suspension of the petitioner and posting him in the office of the Assistant Engineer. The petitioner submitted his joining on 04.01.2023. Subsequently, the Executive Engineer cancelled the order of revocation of suspension and again placed the petitioner under suspension by order dated 18.01.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application dated 20.02.2023 seeking cancellation of the order dated 18.01.2023 and prayed for reinstatement. Finally, by order dated 26.05.2023, the office of the Chief Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department, Indore Range, Indore, reinstated the petitioner in service but declined to take any decision regarding the suspension period and consequential benefits on the ground of pendency of a Miscellaneous Criminal Case (leave application) filed against the order of acquittal. Pursuant to the order dated 26.05.2023, the petitioner submitted his joining and was allotted work by order dated 27.07.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted applications dated 22.11.2023 and 24.01.2024 seeking revision of pay scale, grant of benefits of the 7th Pay Commission, difference of salary for the suspension period, and other consequential benefits. Aggrieved by denial of such benefits, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the criminal cases and has been honourably acquitted by the competent criminal courts. It is contended that once the petitioner has been acquitted and reinstated in service, denial of consequential benefits solely on the ground of pendency of a leave applica