IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 20666 OF 2006 DATE OF DECISION: January 30, 2008 Parties Name Budh Singh ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana, for the respondents. JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) Order. Prayer in this writ petition is to quash order Annexure P-4 dated December 30, 2004, and order Annexure P-5 dated January 7, 2005, vide which continuity of service and payment of back wages was declined to the petitioner. Brief facts of the case are that when the petitioner was working as an Assistant in ITI at Kalanwali, a criminal case was registered against him and his brother on July 15, 1984. They were convicted on April 24, 1989. Petitioner was arrested and remained in judicial custody from February 5, 1990, to February 9, 1990. By taking note of conviction of the petitioner in a criminal case, he was put under suspension and ultimately, the petitioner was dismissed from service on October 31, 1991. It is an admitted fact that the appeal, filed by the petitioner, against his conviction was dismissed. He came in revision before this CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 20666 OF 2006 -2- Court, which was allowed on January 22, 2003. Thereafter, the petitioner made a request for his re-instatement. It is also necessary to mention here that prior to his acquittal, the petitioner, by laying challenge to his dismissal order, filed C.W.P. No. 18428 of 1991, which came up for hearing before this Court on September 15, 2004. In that case, the respondent – State produced order Annexure P-1 reinstating the petitioner in service, and accordingly the said writ petition was disposed of by passing the following order: “Learned counsel for the respondents has handed over the court a copy of the order passed by the Director Industrial Training and Vocation Education, Haryana, dated 7.9.2004. The aforesaid order is taken on record and marked as Annexure A. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the instant writ petition has been rendered infructuous in view of the order Annexure 'A'. The instant writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. The respondents are directed to calculate the monetary benefits which will become due to the petitioner as a consequence of the passing of the order Annexure 'A' within two months from today and release the same to the petitioner within a further period of one month.” It is apparent from the records that order Annexure P-1 dated September 7, 2004 , as mentioned above, does not talk of non-payment of back wages and also continuity of service, as claimed by the petitioner in CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 20666 OF 2006 -3- this writ petition. The respondents thereafter passed order Annexure P-4 denying benefit of back wages to the petitioner and also continuity of service. Order Annexure P-5 was also passed on the same lines. It is necessary to mention here that in the meantime, the petitioner had superannuated on August 31, 2003. He has filed this writ petition claiming that for the period, following his dismissal from services and till the date of his re-instatement, he was entitled to get deemed benefit of annual increments, revision of pay scales etc., if any. His prayer has been declined by stating that the orders Annexures P-4 and P-5 have been passed in view of the order, passed by this Court on September 15, 2004, as referred to above and as such he is not entitled to claim any further benefit. We are of the view that the prayer made by the petitioner is perfectly justified. In order Annexure P-1, there is no mention of denial of back wages to the petitioner and also continuity in service. Benefit of back wages has been declined to him by placing reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Jaipal Singh, 2004 (2) R.S.J. 63. We have gone through that judgment, so far as denial of back wages is concerned, in view of law laid down vide judgment, referred to above, the petitioner is not entitled to get the same. However, with regard to continuity of service, we feel that the case of the petitioner is covered by the ratio of the judgment in Jaipal Singh's case (supra), wherein while dealing with similar controversy, their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus: “4. The respondent will be entitled to backwages from the date of acquittal and except for the purpose of denying the respondent actual payment of backwages, that period also will CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 20666 OF 2006 -4- be counted as period of service, without any break. The reinstatement , if not already done, in terms of the order of the High Court will be done within thirty days from today.” In view of the facts, mentioned above, we allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to give continuity in service to the petitioner from the date he was dismissed from service and till the time of his reinstatement, i.e. April 17, 2003. It is further directed that his pay be notionally fixed by giving all permissible benefits, falling to his credit, during that period. However, he will not be entitled to claim any financial benefits/actual payment for the said period. His pension be also refixed accordingly. Needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge ( Jaswant Singh) January 30, 2008. Judge