,9 /Jr j/I’N' ma ’mGH gguR‘rwgg may-NA PRADESI}. AT'JABALwR Mme. PeiitLo-n Naif/3% of 1993. mm §;bo Ram/SLtf/V Ra ak aged about ’ 42 years, w son 0f Va: $1ngh Rayak- CultLvator - 7Re§dent of mobigudé _ Jagdaléur {f A.‘ Z‘ k/‘IN‘ ' cmgumngag W j PE E ‘EIONER :— mstt. Bastar M,P. vve‘rsus, gESPONmNTS g- 1. Board of $verme - Madhya Pradesh Gwa'lier .. M, P, “ /<2. mm Sahkari samni Maryadiiu Pandnar, ilhrough Kendriya Sahkari Bagk imyadit .. Jagdalpu: )I u$tt Bastar M. P'. 57 3. V ‘sahayak Panjiyak .. Sghkari sami'u‘. ‘Jagaalpur - nistrict Basrtax; 14.9. \ iggom UNngg ARaICLEs gaé Amp g27 OF THE CaqSEiU'EONwgF iNpIA w HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. WRIT PETITION NO. 5210F 1993 Sibo Ram Rayak Versus Board of Revenue 8n others Pre$ent: Shri Vinay Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Praful Bharat, counsel for the respondent No. 1. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, counsel for the respondent No. 2. ORAL ORDER ( 6TH Decembex, 2005) v The following Order of the Court was passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J : ~ Lealned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was Working as Sabha—Prabandhak in Sewa Sahkari Samiti Malyadit, Pandnar, Distn'ct Bastar‘ The petitioner was dismissed from the service by order dated 29.7. 1975, on thecharge of Criminal ‘ i breach of trust to the effect that the petitioner had embezzlement sum of Rs. 1693/ . The petitioner waslprosecuted in the Court of the . Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur in Criminal Case No. 2031/ 76 for offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner Was convicted and sentenced for two years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500, by order dated \x_ 20.4.1979 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, - Jagdaipur. \\\ Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur. The 211d Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur and acquitted the petitioner from the charges, by his cider dated 21.7. 1979. . In the meantime, the proceeding was initiated for recoveiy of a sum of Rs. 1693/- against the petitioner. The Assistant Registrar, (lo-operative Societies, by his order dated 29.3. 1985, dismissed the pet'tion of the Respondents/Samiti on the ground that the petitioner was acquitted by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur for the charges of criminal bleach of trust, as such no proceeding of recovery could be made against the petitioner. The Respondents] Samiti filed an appeal before the Joint Registrar Co— operative Societies, Bastar, Jagdalpur, who upheld the order dated 29.3. 1985 passed by the Assistant Registrar (lo-operative Societies, Jagdalpur and dismissed the appeal, vide his order dated 24.8.91. 3. The petitioner tiled an application Under Section 8O of the Madhya Pradesh Co—operative Societies Act, 1960 before the Board of Revenue praying that the pentioner be reinstated in service with arrears of back wages. The said application was tiled on the ground that the petitioner had been acquitted from the alleged charges made by the respondents/Samiti from the Court of the 2‘1‘1 Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur, as such the petitioner was entitled for reinstatement with back wages. The Board of Revenue vide its order dated 8.5.1992, directed re-appointment of the 2 :holding that the petitioner was not entitlad to any petiu'oner back wages. 4. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articla 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India in this court seeking relief that the petitioner be granted back wages for the period, for which he was out of service. The petitioner has sought following relief, “(1') That the petitioner shouid be taken back in the post and should be allowed to be inthe service as if there had been no order of his dismissal ah‘ke to one dated 29.7.1975, this order being inepcective from the date of inception, (ii) That the petitioner should be deemed to be in continuous service from the date of his first original appointment and he should be accordingly entitled to all the advantages of pay etc accuring thereby accordingly. ” In the course of arguments, the petitioner confines his prayer only to the grant of back wages as he was already re-appointed in service vide order dated 8.5. 1992. - 4. ‘- Having heard learned counsel for the panics and perusing the documents appended to the petition, I am of the View that the petitioner has confmed his prayer before the Board of Revenue to the same relief as granted by the Board of Revenue in other identical matter namely Harcharan Vs. Raiendra Vipnan Co-op. Society Ltd, Baldevgarh (1984 Revenue Niinay 235). This is evident from para 4 of the impugned order also that the Board of Revenue, after consideration of the prayer confined to the same relief as granted in Harcharan’s Case (supral, directed the respondents/8min to W amt ram m—appoint the patitioner without back Wagcs. It was further made clear that the appoinmlent would be a new appointment. In case of Haxcharagisupra), the Board of Reveaue had granted the similar relief of ire—appointment without back wages. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner be granted back wages. It is not urged before this court that the order of re-appointment was bad. In case of re-appointment, there is no question of granting back wages as even the continuity of service was not granted by the Board of Revenue. The petitioner has also not challenged the part of reappointment of the impugned order. In View of the foregoing, there is no merit in the case. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Bablu