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
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
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
(1995) 3 SCC 377
::4:: AKS,J & LNA,J
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
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.
(2006) 5 SCC 446
(2024) 1 SCC 175
::6:: AKS,J & LNA,J
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
