RESHAMLAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein seeks arrears of salary from 28/6/2005 to 26/3/2008 and also for fixing his pensionary benefits on the basis of his last pay drawn by him. The aforesaid claim has been made on the following factual background: -

(2.) The petitioner while working as Head Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF) was placed under suspension on 28/6/2005, as offences punishable under Ss. 147, 148, 302 read with Sec. 149 and 307 read with Sec. 149 of the IPC were registered against him, but no departmental enquiry was initiated against him and ultimately, he was acquitted from criminal charges on 13/3/2008 by the jurisdictional criminal court extending the benefit of doubt to him pursuant to which he submitted joining to the respondent authorities and upon consideration, the suspension order dtd. 28/6/2005 was revoked by order dtd. 5/5/2008 and he was reinstated in service, but the period from 28/6/2005 to 26/3/2008 was treated as "no work no pay" on the basis of circular dtd. 5/9/1970 issued by the Railway Board and as per Rule 54-B(3) of the Fundamental Rules, which has been called in question by way of this writ petition stating inter alia that since the petitioner has been acquitted from criminal charges, therefore, he is entitled for full arrears of salary for the suspension period and also entitled for pensionary benefits and revised retiral benefits.

(3.) Reply has been filed opposing the averments made in the writ petition stating inter alia that since the petitioner has not been granted honourable acquittal, but he has been extended the benefit of doubt and circular dtd. 5/9/1970 clearly provides that in all cases of acquittal on other than benefit of doubt, the period of suspension should be treated as duty for all purposes and full pay and allowances should be given to the employees for the period of suspension. It has also been pleaded that the petitioner's suspension is wholly unjustified, therefore, by virtue of Rule 54-B(3) of the Fundamental Rules, since the petitioner's suspension is not justified, he will not be entitled to full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended and as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.