HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1048 of 2005 (S/S) Ram Sharan Sharma Retired Assistant Sub Inspector (M) … Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & others … Respondents Dated:- 10th May, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Arvind Vashisht, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder for the State. In the year 1979, the petitioner while working as Record Keeper in the office of Superintendent of Police, Dehradun was implicated in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. A First Information Report was lodged against him as a result of which he was placed under suspension and, eventually, the Special Judge (Prevention of Correction) convicted the petitioner by an order dated 23.12.1981 and sentenced him to undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.500/-. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Allahabad High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner remained under suspension, but subsequently, by an order dated 01st June, 1989, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The said dismissal order was challenged in a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court wherein the court directed that the petitioner could not be dismissed during the pendency of the appeal. Thereafter, the respondents cancelled the order of dismissal dated 01.06.1989 by its order dated 01.12.1992 and the petitioner was reinstated but remained under suspension. Subsequently, the respondents, by an order dated 03rd May, 1995 revoked the suspension order and the petitioner was allowed to join his duties and, in this manner, continued in services of the respondents till he reached the age of superannuation and retired on 01.02.1999. In so far as the criminal appeal of the petitioner is concerned, upon the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the appeal was transferred to this court and it was allowed by a judgment dated 25th 2 November, 2003 and the conviction order of the trail court was set aside. Upon being given a clean acquittal, the petitioner made a representation for payment of his salary for the period when he was under suspension. Instead of deciding the representation, the respondents issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and, based on the reply given by the petitioner, passed an order dated 11.06.2004 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for payment of arrears of salary during the suspension period on the principle of no work no pay. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent no.1, which was also dismissed vide an order dated 15.03.2005. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, has filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the principle of “no work no pay” will not be applicable in the present case. The petitioner was convicted and, based on that, the respondents continued to keep the petitioner under suspension and continued to pay the subsistence allowance. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the conviction has been set aside and the petitioner has been acquitted, he is liable to be paid the salary for the period which he remained under suspension. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Brahma Chandra Gupta Vs. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 380, where in similar circumstances upon being reinstated, the authority granted 3/4th salary during the suspension period. The Supreme Court held that the order of 3/4th salary was patently erroneous and that the petitioner was entitled for full salary. In my opinion, the aforesaid judgment squarely covers the present facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the said judgment, the impugned orders dated 11.06.2004 & 15.03.2005 cannot be sustained and are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The authority is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for payment of arrears of salary during the suspension period in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Brahma Chandra 3 Gupta (supra) within a period of six weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 10.05.2010 LSR