Girdhari Lal vs State of U.P. and Others

Arun Tandon, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri D.P. Singh, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

Petitioner was employed in District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Jaunpur as cashier-cum-clerk. He was convicted of an offence under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Because of his conviction, petitioner was dismissed from service on 14th March, 1990. Petitioner filed an appeal against the order of conviction, which was allowed by the Court on 19th November, 2004. Because of his appeal being allowed, he was restored back in service on 25th August, 2005. Petitioner had challenged the order of termination by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6059 of 1991. The writ petition came up for consideration before the Court on 25th August, 2006, when the petitioner had already been restored back in service and therefore, this Court after specifically noticing the said fact recorded that dispute, which survives, pertains to payment of salary for the period between termination on the basis of conviction and reinstatement on the basis of subsequent acquittal in appeal. The Writ Court relying upon the Judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, held that no salary can be paid to the petitioner for the period during which his services stood terminated. It was further held that the termination of services of the petitioner was in accordance with law and therefore, there was no error in the order of termination. Accordingly the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.

By means of the present writ petition, petitioner seeks consideration of his representation for payment of salary for the period during which the services of the petitioner stood terminated, i.e. 14th March, 1990 to 25th August, 2005 and for adding of annual increments of the said period.

The controversy in that regard stands settled against the petitioner under Judgment and order of the Writ Court dated 25th August, 2006 noticed herein above and such prayer therefore, cannot be granted. It may be recorded that the petitioner had not challenged the order passed by the Writ Court any further, therefore, there cannot be any order requiring the authorities to consider the prayer for salary for the period during which the petitioner''s services stood terminated, or for any other purpose whatsoever. In fact the logical conclusion that follows from the Judgment of the Writ Court dated 25th August, 2006 is that the period between 14th March, 1990 to 25th August, 2005 is to be treated as break in service.

If any increment to be added subsequent to his re-employment has not been paid, petitioner is at liberty to represent his grievances before respondent No. 3 by way of representation within two weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order. On such representation being made, respondent No. 3 shall consider and decide the same, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date the representation is made.

The present writ petition is disposed of subject to the observations made above.