1wp-1903-04 Lrs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.1903 of 2004 Shri Shankar Nana Rupwate ..Petitioner. vs. India Insitute of Technology, Bombay ..Respondent. Mr A.P. Vanarase, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr P.M. Patel, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH AND K.K.TATED,JJ DATED: 16TH NOVEMBER,2009 P.C.:- The petitioner joined the services on 2wp-1903-04 16.9.1998 on his acquittal from criminal charge. He was informed vide impugned letter dated 21.8.2001 by the Respondent No.1  employer that considering the period during which he was not on duty, either because he was in jail or thereafter as a result of his dismissal he cannot be given any salary for that period. But the petitioner did nothing for a period of two years. Thereafter, he filed this petition in August, 2003. 2. The learned Counsel relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109 submits that the petitioner is entitled to salary for the period during which he was not on duty, because the prosecution was going on or because his services were terminated due to conviction. 3. Perusal of para 26 of the judgment of the Supreme Court, however, shows that discretion is vested in the management to decide as to what part of salary such an employee would be entitled. The employer of the petitioner after considering his 3wp-1903-04 record of service by letter dated 21.8.2001 informed that the petitioner is not entitled to any salary for the aforesaid period. We have not been pointed out anything from the record which would indicate that the decision of the employer is either illegal or is actuated by malice. In our opinion, no interference is called for. Petition is hereby rejected. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J) (K.K.TATED,J)