VIJAI PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. S. Chauhan, J. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22-2-1994 has preferred this petition.

(2.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was provided with a job as an untrained Assistant Teacher in the year 1961 by the District Board, Hardoi. Later on he was appointed on the Government service in Basic Shiksha Parishad. THEreafter, the petitioner got himself trained in B. T. C. He possesses the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Junior Basic School. THE petitioner worked from 1963 to 1969 in the various Junior Basic Schools and lastly worked from 1969 to 1994 in the Junior Basic School, Kodanna (Ahirori Block), Hardoi. It is further contended that the petitioner was promoted from the post of Assistant Teacher of Junior Basic Schools to the post of Assistant Teacher of Senior Basic Schools and posted in Junior High School, Gonda Rao, Block Ahirori, District Hardoi by means of the order dated 10-1-1994. THE petitioner took over the said post and started working. Subsequently during the course of the employment, the petitioner was implicated in a criminal case and by means of the judgment and order dated 11-12-1986, the petitioner was convicted under Section 302 I. P. C. by the learned Sessions Judge. THE petitioner filed an appeal before this Court being Criminal Appeal No. 778 of 1986. In the said appeal the petitioner was granted bail but the same is still pending for adjudication.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the opposite parties has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit where it has been stated that if a Government employee is convicted in a criminal case, he can be dismissed from service but nothing has been said as to why the petitioner was only reverted and allowed to continue on the post in question. THE petitioner has been working through out till date of his retirement. Annexure SA-2 filed alongwith supplementary affidavit clearly shows that the petitioner was also given session extension up till 30-6-1999, meaning thereby; that if the petitioner was not in the employment, there was no occasion to give him session extension. From the documents placed on record, it is established that the petitioner has been working all through out and as such he is entitled for the salary on the reverted post. THE Authorities on account of some confusion have stopped the salary of the petitioner since November, 1987 although there was an interim order dated 21-4-1994 passed by this Court to the effect that the opposite parties will either pay the emoluments admissible to the petitioner for the period he has worked or show cause why it is not being paid. THE opposite parties have shown cause by filing counter-affidavit, but inspite of that nothing has come on record to indicate that the petitioner was not working during this period on the reverted post.