SUGREEV YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure no. 7 whereby this Court has decided Service Single No. 4849 of 2013 ( Jamuna Deen Awasthi vs. State of U.P.and others ) vide judgment and order dated 15.9.2017, for the brevity the aforesaid order dated 15.9.2017 is being produced as under :

(3.) Sub-rule 2 of Fundamental Rule 53 provides that no payment under sub-rule 1 shall be made unless the Government servant furnish a certificate that he is not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation. The above certificate, therefore, is required before making payment under Fundamental Rule 53(1),i.e., subsistence allowance. In the case in hand the subsistence allowance was already paid to petitioner meaning thereby the respondents admitted the stand of petitioner that he is not employed elsewhere during suspension period. Having done so it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to deny arrears of salary for the period of suspension when the proceedings ended in his acquittal only on the ground that sub-rule 2 is not complied with and non employment certificate was not provided though he was already paid subsistence allowance for which the condition precedent was the submission of non employment certificate. Once subsistence allowance was paid meaning thereby the respondents admitted that such compliance is there. No other reason has been given by the respondents to deny arrears of salary to the petitioner pursuant to order of suspension resulting in reinstatement of petitioner due to his acquittal in the criminal case. Where an employee is placed under suspension on account of any criminal case if the criminal case ultimately results in acquittal the arrears of salary cannot be denied to the employee concerned.