Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5248 of 2006 ====================================================== 1. Nasran Raza 2. Gufran Raza 3. Kamran Askari All sons of Late Askari Raza. 4. Sakina khatoon daughter of Late Askari Raza, wife of Syed Afzal Hussain. All residents of C/o Aun Mohammad, Guilla Chowk Barhampura, Post MIT, P.S.-Barhampura, District Muzaffarpur-842003. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. 2. Bihar School Examination Board through its Secretary. 3. Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== For the Petitioners : Mr. Syed Wazir Ali, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Namrata Mishra, Advocate. ====================================================== PRESENT : Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Hussain O R D E R 10 27-03-2012 1. This writ petition was filed by Raja Askari the original petitioner for directing the respondents to reinstate him in service forthwith with all consequential benefits including wages, salary and pension etc. The said original petitioner died on 04.12.2010 whereafter his heirs have been substituted in his place. 2. The claim of the petitioners is that while the original petitioner was in service as Assistant in Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’ for the sake of Patna High Court CWJC No.5248 of 2006 (10) dt.27-03-2012 2 brevity) a criminal case bearing Patna Kotwali P.S. Case No.15(7) of 1976 was instituted against him for offences punishable under [STATUTE] . The said case was tried as T.R. No.121 of 1989 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna and the original petitioner was finally convicted for two years rigorous imprisonment for the said offences vide judgment dated 07.02.1989. It is not in dispute that only on the said ground of conviction the original petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 04.08.1992 passed by the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners also claimed that against the said order of conviction, the original petitioner filed Cr.Appeal No.44 of 1989 and after hearing the parties and perusing the materials on record, Additional Sessions Judge-1, Patna allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 29.07.2005 and set aside the judgment of the trial court and acquitted the original petitioner. Thus the original petitioner filed application dated 05.12.2005 and sent lawyer’s notice dated 22.12.2005 before the authorities of the Board for his reinstatement, but no heed was paid to those applications and notice and hence the original petitioner was constrained to file the instant writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further averred Patna High Court CWJC No.5248 of 2006 (10) dt.27-03-2012 3 that the date of superannuation of the original petitioner was 30.09.2007 and the said date passed without his reinstatement although he was fully entitled to it and finally the sole original petitioner died on 04.12.2010, whereafter the application of substitution of his heirs bearing I.A. No.1220 of 2012 was allowed by this court vide order dated 06.03.2012 and his heirs, namely three sons and a daughter were substituted in his place as petitioners. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they were entitled to all the back wages of the original petitioner from the date of his termination i.e. 04.08.1992 till the date of his superannuation i.e. 30.09.2007 and also for the amounts of pension etc. thereafter till his death on 04.12.2010 to which the original petitioner was legally entitled. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of Babu Lal vs. State of Haryana and others, reported in (1991) 2 Supreme Court Cases 335 and also a decision of a Bench of this court in case of Mani Ram Yadav and anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2000 (1) P.L.J.R. 239. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-Board and its authorities produced a copy of order Patna High Court CWJC No.5248 of 2006 (10) dt.27-03-2012 4 dated 14.05.2009 by which the Apex Court had decided Civil Appeal No.3564 of 2009 filed by a co-accused of the petitioner in exactly similar circumstances holding that the petitioner of that case was not entitled to back wages and was entitled to pension only. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that against the order passed in the criminal appeal the Board had filed Cr.Revision No.569 of 2007 before this court, which was dismissed by a Bench of this court vide order dated 18.07.2008. Learned counsel for the respondents also claimed that the basis of non-payment of wages as considered in the aforesaid judgment was the principle of ‘no work, no pay’ as the petitioner of that case as well as the original petitioner of this case had not worked for a single day after termination of their respective services. 8. From the arguments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record it is quite apparent that the facts are not disputed that the original petitioner was in service as Assistant in the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna and was convicted in a criminal case for two years rigorous imprisonment by order dated 07.02.1989 and on that ground only the original petitioner was removed from his service on 04.08.1992 by the Patna High Court CWJC No.5248 of 2006 (10) dt.27-03-2012 5 Board. It is also not in dispute that the original petitioner succeeded in criminal appeal filed against his conviction and the appellate court vide judgment dated 29.07.2005 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial court and acquitted the original petitioner. But in spite of the said fact and repeated petition and notice sent by the original petitioner the Board did not reins

Applicable IPC Section: 467

Statute Text:
Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. Forgery of a valuable security, will or authority to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive any money, etc. Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.