BABAN S O SHRIRAM WAFARE Vs. ZILLA PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner came to be appointed as primary teacher by order dated 1-7-1963 under a school run by the Zilla Parishad. He was posted at the primary school at Karjule Harya, Taluka Parner, District, Ahmednagar and on 14-5-1982 while he was working at the said school a criminal complaint came to be lodged against him and other for an offence punishable under section 302 of the I. P. C. with the Parner Police Station. Offence under Crime No. I-507/82 came to be registered against the petitioner and others and he was arrested on 25-5-1982 in connection with the said crime. After committing the case to the Sessions Court, it came to be registered as Sessions Case No. 23/83 before the Sessions Court at Ahmednagar. The petitioner came to be convicted by order dated 20-6-1983 for offences punishable under section 304, Part II and section 323 of the I. P. C. and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer further R. I. for 6 months. In addition to a fine of Rs. 200/ -. in default to suffer R. I. for 15 days. While this Sessions case was pending against the petitioner, he was suspended by an order dated 6-8-1982 and the said order was effective retrospectively from 26-5-1982. This order of suspension was specifically based on the crime registered against the petitioner and he was informed during the period of suspension, he would not be eligible to accept any assignment either in Government or private service.

(2.) THE conviction and sentence order passed by the Sessions Court came to be challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 360/83 and during the pendency of this appeal, the petitioner submitted a representation on 18-2-1986 praying for reinstatement in service by withdrawing the suspension order. However, by order dated 24-7-1986 he came to be dismissed from service under the provisions of Rule 9 (i) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. Criminal Appeal No. 360/83 came to be decided and allowed by this Court on 29-1-1987 and it appears that the petitioner had submitted a fresh representation for reinstatement in service based on this acquittal order, on 9-3-1987. The petitioner alleges that he was not heard on that representation at any time and finally on 24-7-1987 he was issued a fresh order of appointment as Assistant Teacher in a primary school. This order of appointment was based on the outcome of Criminal Appeal No. 360/83 and the petitioner reported for duty on 8-9-1987. On 1-2-1988 the petitioner submitted a representation stating that he was being paid salary on the basis that he was freshly appointed and he had lost his seniority as well. He represented that at the time he was suspended, his basic pay was Rs. 390/- and he was entitled for six annual increments on his appointment on 24-7-1987. The same request was followed by submitting representation on 21-4-1998 and finally on 22-8-1988 a show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner. On 29-11-1988 the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad passed an order purportedly invoking the provisions of Rule 71 (2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Joining Time Foreign Service and Payments during Suspension, Dismissal and Removal) Rules, 1981 and informed the petitioner that the period of suspension from 26-5-1982 to 23-7-1986 shall be treated as suspension and the period from 24-7-1986 to 6-9-1987 shall be treated as leave period. Both these orders i. e. order dated 24-7-1987 and 29-11-1988 have been assailed before us.

(3.) THE Zilla Parishad has filed the return and opposed the petition. An additional affidavit has been presented today. It is contended by the Zilla Parishad that the acquittal order passed by this Court was taken note of the petitioner was reappointed in service by the impugned order dated 24-7-1987 and by the subsequent order dated 29-11-1988 he has been granted the benefit of continuity in service and his pension has been fixed on the said basis. This affidavit is silent regarding the fixation of the petitioners salary while issuing the appointment order dated 24-7-1987 as well as for his pensionary benefits. The question before us is whether the petitioner is entitled for the consequential benefits on his reappointment on account of acquittal and the learned Counsel for the Zilla Parishad submits that such a course is not permissible and whatever was permissible under the Rules, has been granted to the petitioner and therefore, nothing further survives in the petition.