IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 340 OF 2003 (S/S) Umesh Chandra Upreti ………..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal and others. …………...Respondents. Ms. Menka Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 25th July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay entire salary for the period he remained suspended. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in J.B.T. Grade on 26.7.1976. On 21.8.1986, one Sri Chandra Mohan Pant, who was officiating Principal of Government Inter College Darmiya lodged First Information Report against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner kicked the Principal in his stomach. Thereafter, on 26.8.1986, the District Inspector of School, Almora suspended the petitioner in pursuance of the FIR and granted suspension allowance for that period. In pursuance of the said FIR, a case under Section 332 and 307 of I.P.C. State Vs. Umesh Chandra was made out against the petitioner and the same was tried as Sessions Trial No. 28 of 1987. Thereafter, on 4.7.1987, the learned Sessions Judge, Almora imposed a fine of Rs. 300/- on the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent to reinstate him in service on 13.12.1991 and vide order dated 7.8.2000, the District Inspector of Schools, Almora 2 reinstated the petitioner in service on a condition that the petitioner would not be entitled to get salary and service benefits for the suspension period. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, he submitted a number of representations with regard to grant salary and all service benefits to the petitioner for the period he remained suspended. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, where in paragraph 10, it has been stated that the respondent no. 3 vide his order dated 7-8- 2000, the petitioner was directed to be reinstated from the date of his actual taking of charge, but the petitioner was not found entitled to get the salary and emoluments of the period of the suspension. 4. Heard counsel for both the parties. 5. In view of submission of both the parties, I am of the view that there ought to have been an appropriate order under Section 54-B of the Financial Hand Book, but the case is lacking the same, therefore, the competent authority is directed to pass appropriate order under Section 54-B of the Financial Hand Book with regard to the payment for suspension period of the petitioner. 6. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of finally. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 25.7.2008 Rathour