Aditya Kumar Gupta vs M.P. State Electricity Board and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—The grievance of the petitioner is within a narrow compass. He is aggrieved by the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 10.6.2008 in as much as in the said order, the competent authority has granted him the wages from the date of acquittal to the date of reinstatement (hereinafter called for the intervening period). However, while granting the said benefit, the competent authority has treated the date of acquittal incorrectly as 11.12.2006 whereas it should have been 28.9.2004. Shri D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that to this extent the competent authority''s order is bad in law. The attention of this Court is drawn to the order of the High Court delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 508/1997. The said order shows that it was delivered on 28.9.2004.

Shri Rajendra Bhargava, learned counsel for the other side submits that against the order Annexure P-1, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was rejected on 2.11.2010. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge this appellate order.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

On a specific question from the bench, Shri Rajendra Bhargava fairly admitted that the date of appellate order of the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 508/97 is wrongly mentioned as 11.12.2006. The High Court order Annexure P-2 on the face of it shows that it was delivered on 28.9.2004. The error is apparent on the face of the record. Thus, I find force in the argument of Shri D.P. Singh that the competent authority has erred in treating the period from 11.12.2006 to 20.2.2007, whereas the intervening period is from 28.9.2004 to 20.2.2007. The respondents have already granted the service benefits including wages to the petitioner from 11.12.2006 to 20.2.2007. Considering the aforesaid, the matter is remanded back to the Superintending Engineering (O & M) to reconsider the order dated 10.6.2008 by treating the correct date of the order of the High Court i.e., 28.9.2004 and pass fresh order. The aforesaid exercise be completed within 60 days and the order of appellate authority dated 2.11.2010 will not come in the way of the said authority for passing the appropriate order. Any amount arising thereto be also paid to the petitioner within the aforesaid time. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.