IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 3130/2008 (OA No. 670/96) Date of Decision : March 6, 2009 Shri Rajinder Sharma Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Ms. Sulochana Kaundal, Advocate for the petitioner. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) In the present petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) That the applicant be held entitled for crossing of efficiency bar at the stage of Rs. 1400/- with effect from the due date of 1.2.83 by virtue of having passed the departmental examination subsequently and also to earn annual increments thereafter till date alongwith all consequential benefits thereof. (ii) That the applicant be held entitled for regularisation of suspension period with effect from 24.9.86 to 5.7.93 on acquittal in the criminal cases regarding which the applicant was placed under suspension alongwith all consequential benefits thereof. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? (iii) That the respondents be directed to consider the applicant for crossing of efficiency bar with effect from the due date and to release to the applicant by allowing him annual increments till date with all consequential benefits thereof. (iv) That the respondents be directed to treat the suspension period with effect from 24.9.86 to 5.7.93 as period spent on duty for all intents and purposes and to release to the applicant the consequential benefits thereof. It is an admitted case as is evident from the petition that the petitioner himself was involved in various criminal cases. He was, however, acquitted in all but one by the appropriate Courts. The petitioner who was placed under suspension vide order Annexure- A1, dated 24.9.1986, approached the State for regularisation of the suspension period and efficiency bar. The authorities vide Annexure- A5 dated 28.7.1994 took the position as under: “I. Release of Efficiency Bar since 1984: In this connection please refer to this office letter No. 1895-96 dt. 20.8.93 (copy enclosed) vide which copy of Govt. orders containing position of the case has been sent. In this connection no further orders regarding settlement of all vigilance cases have been received from the Govt. Further action can be taken on receipt of orders from the Govt. II Regularisation of suspension period: The copy of judgement supplied by Shri Rajinder Sharma, AE is in process in Vigilance section of this office and will be transmitted to Secretary I&PH shortly.” The petitioner himself has averred that the trial in criminal case No. 10-S/7 of 1993/92 is pending. The respondents have explained that the petitioner had not qualified the departmental examination hence was not eligible to have been considered for the benefits which are now sought. This position is not disputed as the petitioner himself has stated that he qualified the departmental examination only in the year 1987. Hence the petitioner’s prayer for the period prior to 1987 cannot be allowed. With regard to the remaining period, the petitioner himself has averred that criminal case is pending. The outcome of the said criminal case shall have a bearing on the petitioner’s entitlement to the other reliefs. In this view of the matter no further orders can be passed in favour of the petitioner at this stage save and except that in the event of the petitioner being finally acquitted in the criminal proceedings it shall always be open for him to approach the authorities for redressal of his grievances for the remaining period. The petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. March 6, 2009 (PK)