Telangana High Court
Singam Ramakrishna vs Bharat Dynamics Limited on 8 November, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT APPEAL No.1111 OF 2024
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) Aggrieved by the order, dated 21.06.2024, passed in W.P.No.2196 of 2019 by a learned Single Judge of this Court, the present Writ Appeal is filed.
2. Heard Sri Muppu Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. V. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents had appeared through online.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant had contended that the appellant was appointed as Junior Technician with the respondents in 1987 and subsequently, he was promoted as Senior Master Technician. The appellant was placed under suspension on 22.12.2006 on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case vide Cr.No.335 of 2006 under Section 302 of I.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that the appellant was convicted by the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in ::2:: AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.1111 of 2024 S.C.No.407 of 2007 vide judgment, dated 11.06.2008. Thereafter, the appellant has preferred a Criminal Appeal No.1556 of 2009 before the High Court and this Court vide judgment, dated 08.07.2014 was pleased to allow the Criminal Appeal in favour of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that consequent upon conviction by the Sessions Court, the respondents have terminated his services on 31.10.2008. After his acquittal in a Criminal Appeal, the appellant has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.39296 of 2015 challenging his termination and this Court passed an interim order on 02.08.2016, directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the appellant, dated 10.03.2015 and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the interlocutory order, the respondents have reinstated the appellant into service vide proceedings, dated 01.09.2016. However, the respondents have not extended the consequential benefits.
4. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not granting consequential benefits, the appellant has once again approached this Court by filing W.P.No.2196 of 2019 ::3:: AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.1111 of 2024 and the learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition vide order, dated 21.06.2024, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that the earlier petition i.e., W.P.No.39296 of 2015 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order, dated 15.02.2019, as the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication due to the appellant's reinstatement into service. Learned counsel further contended that the issue of granting consequential benefits after the acquittal was dealt with by the Honourable Supreme Court in Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration) Madras v. S. Nagoor Meera 1, wherein, the Honourable Supreme Court had held that an employee who is acquitted in a criminal case can be considered for grant of consequential benefits. Therefore, the learned Single Judge without appreciating the contentions raised by the appellant, has mechanically dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that back wages 1 (1995) 3 SCC 377 ::4:: AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.1111 of 2024 cannot be granted as per Organisation rules and regulations for the out of employment period. Learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that there are no such rules or regulations preventing the granting of back wages or consequential benefits. When once the appellant is acquitted in the criminal case, he is entitled to all consequential benefits. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order, dated 21.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2196 of 2019 and further direct the respondents to release all consequential benefits.
6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents had contended that let the appellant submit a detailed representation to the respondents claiming the consequential benefits consequent upon his reinstatement into service, then the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
7. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the view that the learned Single ::5:: AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.1111 of 2024 Judge was not justified in dismissing the Writ Petition with an observation that there are no Organisation rules and regulations for granting back wages. Admittedly, there are no such rules or regulations which prevent the appellant from claiming consequential benefits consequent upon his acquittal in the criminal case and his reinstatement. Therefore, ends of justice would be met, if the Writ Appeal is disposed of by directing the appellant to submit a detailed representation to the respondents seeking consequential benefits consequent upon his acquittal in a criminal case and his reinstatement into service. Upon receiving the representation, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The respondents shall also consider the case of the appellant by taking into account the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in G.M.Tank v. State of Gujarat 2 and in Ramlal v. State of Rajasthan & others 3 and pass orders accordingly.
2 (2006) 5 SCC 446 3 (2024) 1 SCC 175 ::6:: AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.1111 of 2024
8. With the above observations/directions, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 08.11.2024.
prat