Allahabad High Court
Ram Deo Yadav And Another vs State Of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. ... on 27 January, 2023
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3071 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ram Deo Yadav And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. Home U.P.Civil Sectt.And
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Mehrotra,Ajit Singh,Santosh Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard Sri Ajit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent State.
Sri Vinod Kumar Singh has placed the instructions dated 16.12.2022 which is taken on record. He has also submitted on the basis of instructions that it appears that the case of the petitioners is at par, therefore, the present petition be also decided in terms of the judgment of this Court dated 3.4.2018 passed in Service Single No.1716 of 2014 (Ujiyare Lal. Vs. State of U.P. and others.). The judgment and order dated 3.4.2018 (supra) is reproduced as under:-
"Heard Sri D.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4.
Brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in 27th Battalion, P.A.C., Sitapur. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner and due to lodging of the first information report he was placed under suspension. In the criminal case the petitioner was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 19.11.1996.
Against the order of acquittal the State Government has filed Special Appeal No. 166 of 1998 (State vs. Ujiyare Lal and 61 others), but no stay order has been granted in the said appeal and the judgment and order of acquittal is in existence. After the order of acquittal when no order was passed for reinstatement of the petitioner in service, he filed a Writ Petition No. 6808(S/S) of 2007, wherein a direction was issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement in service and in regard to all consequential benefits available to the petitioner.
Certified copy of the order of this Court was served upon the respondents and thereafter the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 03.05.2013. The said order was assailed in Contempt No. 1804 of 2008, which was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to assail the grievance, if any, within a period of two months before the appropriate forum.
Therefore, this writ petition has been filed.
Assailing the said order the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent while passing the impugned order has nowhere considered the claim of the petitioner nor had recorded reasons for rejecting the claim. He next submitted that reference may be made to the writ petition No. 4849 of 2013, which has been decided vide order dated 15.09.2013, whereby the writ petition was allowed and after setting aside the impugned order a direction was issued to pay entire arrears of salary to the petitioner for the period he was remain under suspension.
As per contra Sri Vishal Verma, Advocate, holding brief of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, submitted that the respondent while passing the impugned order has not committed any illegality and supported the order passed by the Commandant of 27th Battalion, P.A.C., Sitapur dated 23.05.2013. He further submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. It is a just and valid order.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.
On perusal of the impugned order dated 03.05.2013 it is apparent that the respondent no. 4 has narrated the facts of the case and the order passed by this Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, and in two lines, by recording findings that he has not worked for that period thus he is not entitled to get salary, has decided the issue.
On perusal of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is apparent that while deciding the similar controversy this Court has held that the order, being unreasoned, is not sustainable in law and directed to pay the entire arrears of salary for the period of suspension.
A query was made to the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel in regard to the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On its perusal the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel could not dispute the ratio of the judgment of this Court.
In the opinion of the Court the respondent no. 4 has not considered the claim set up by the petitioner in correct prospect.
The petitioner was suspended on the ground that a criminal case has been lodged against him, wherein he has been acquitted by the competent court of law. The respondent has filed to consider that against the petitioner no disciplinary proceedings was whatsoever initiated due to lodging of the first information report against him. He was suspended only on the ground of pendency of the criminal case. The petitioner has not absented from duties for his own will. He was restrained by the respondent from discharging the duties in full strength. Due to non-consideration of this aspect of the matter the order dated 03.05.2013 passed by the respondent is not sustainable in law and is hereby set aside.
In view of the above, the order passed by the respondent is not sustainable in law. The order is hereby set aside.
The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
The respondents are directed to pay the entire difference of salary to the petitioner w.e.f. 28.05.1973 to 28.02.2001 within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him."
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the case of the petitioners is at par with the case of Ujiyare Lal (supra) and he has prayed that the case of the petitioners be also decided in terms of the aforesaid case. Learned counsel for respondents State has no objection in case the petition is decided in terms of the judgment in the case of Ujiyare lal (supra).
Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid case of Ujiyare Lal. The benefits of the said judgment and order is also extended to the present petitioners.
Order Date :- 27.1.2023
Rajneesh JR-PS)
