LPA No.121 of 2003 in CWP NO. 11245/1995 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.121 of 2003 in CWP NO. 11245/1995 Date of Decision: 16.9.2008. Bhupinderjit Singh ..........Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and others. ..........Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.R.K.Dadwal,Advocate for the appellant. Ms.Nidhi Garg,AAG Punjab for the respondents. Jaswant Singh,J. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant- petitioner against the judgement dated 17.1.2003 passed by the learned single Judge vide which the writ petition filed by him was allowed and he was held entitled to be reinstated into service on his acquittal in a criminal case but the consequential benefit of arrears of pay was denied. Facts in brief are that appellant-petitioner was recruited as Medical Officer on short term basis by the respondent-Health Department, vide appointment letter dated 14/17.8.1989 (Annexure P/1). As per condition no.1 of the terms and conditions of appointment, appellant- petitioner was appointed purely on short term basis for a period of six months or till the availability of regular candidate from the Punjab Public Service Commission, whichever, was earlier. He, however, continued to LPA No.121 of 2003 in CWP NO. 11245/1995 2 serve the respondent department, as periodic extensions were granted, till 31.3.1995 when no further extension was given to him due to registration of FIR No.19 dated 14.2.1995 under Sections 363/365/452/427/506/34 IPC at PS Kotwali, Hoshiarpur, in which he remained in custody from 14.2.1995 to 9.3.1995, when he was released on bail. The appellant-petitioner filed CWP No.11245 of 1995, challenging the action of the respondents in removing him from service with a further prayer to regularise his services on account of six years of his service, in view of government policy dated 7.9.1993 (Annexure P/6). It was argued before the learned single Judge that the appellant- petitioner had been acquitted in the case registered vide FIR No.19 dated 14.2.1995 by the competent Court and further he had also been acquitted by the learned appellate Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur in the other case registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act, wherein he had been convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, vide order dated 23.10.1997 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of five months and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, and therefore, the basis for termination of his services had been wiped out. Learned single Judge, after considering the material on record and the case law cited, allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner and held that the petitioner, on his acquittal in the aforesaid criminal cases was entitled to be reinstated into service and further entitled to be considered for regularisation in terms of policy dated 7.9.1993 (Annexure P/6). Appellant-petitioner has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal LPA No.121 of 2003 in CWP NO. 11245/1995 3 seeking the grant of consequential benefit i.e. arrears of pay and other co- related arrears from the date when the services of the appellant-petitioner were terminated. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not disputed that the appellant-petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer, purely on short term basis for a period of six months. He was, however, granted extensions from time to time. It is also not disputed that as per condition no.(i) laid down in the appointment letter, his services could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason or notice etc. It is also not in dispute that it was the appellant-petitioner's conduct itself i.e. his involvement in criminal cases which had resulted into non-grant of further extension in service. It is a settled principle of law that persons appointed on short term basis or six months basis have no right to hold the post keeping in view the nature of their engagement in service. The respondents, therefore, were perfectly justified in not granting any further extension. We find that the learned single Judge has already granted him the relief of reinstatement, which he probably was not entitled to. Since, no appeal has been filed by the respondent-State, therefore, we do not comment any further on this issue. As regards the grant of back wages, the appellant-petitioner on account of his involvement in aforesaid criminal cases had dis-entitled himself from rendering service to the respondents on account of his incarceration in jail and conviction. Under these circumstances, we find that the appellant-petitioner is not entitled to payment of back wages. We LPA No.121 of 2003 in CWP NO. 11245/1995 4 find support in our view from a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) and another (1996) 11 SCC 603. In view of the above, we find no merit in this Letters Patent Appeal. Dismissed. (Jaswant Singh) Judge 16.9.2008. (Satish Kumar Mittal) joshi Judge