GEETA VARMA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the termination order dated 9.3.1990, contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. An interim order was granted by this Court on 22.1.1993 and the petitioner has been continuing on the basis of the interim order in service.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner expired on 28.11.2006. Thereafter the heirs of the petitioner have moved an application for substitution and they have been substituted and brought on record in place of the petitioner. Thus, the termination order requires adjudication as the heirs are claiming the retiral dues of the petitioner, which are legally due to him.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been working all throughout from 24.2.1993 and after acquittal of the petitioner in criminal case he is entitled to be reinstated with back wages as the charge against the petitioner of forged appointment letter was not established in trial. He also submits that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in his statement has admitted that the mistake was committed by him while sending the compliance report to the Consolidation Commissioner and on account of that the entire trouble arose. Fie, therefore, submits that neither the petitioner was at fault nor the appointment letter was forged in any manner and once the Criminal Court adjudicated upon the matter on merit after taking the evidence on record and considering the same, there is no occasion to continue the termination order any further. The petitioner's co -appointees were allowed to continue and one co -appointee, Arun Kumar Pandey filed claim petition before the Public Services Tribunal and his claim petition has been allowed by the Tribunal.