UNION OF INDIA Vs. SIBARAM NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated November 17, 2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 325 of 1999 which was filed by the Opp. Party claiming back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. It may be stated that the opposite party was dismissed from service due to his conviction in a criminal case. However, the conviction was set aside in appeal and on a representation being made by the opposite party, the authorities reinstated him in service, but did not pay him back wages. The Tribunal vide the impugned order directed the present petitioners to consider the case of the opposite party as if he was in service from the date of dismissal and therefore entitled to all consequential benefits including the back wages and pay the same within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of its order.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party while working as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master at Sibilaposi Branch Post Office was placed under suspension due to his alleged involvement in a criminal charge under Section 409, IPC. The Trial Court convicted him for the charge, but in appeal the judgment of the Trial Court was set aside and he was acquitted. The Judgment and order was delivered on February 8, 1994 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1987. However, after being convicted by the Trial Court he had been dismissed from service vide order dated November 30, 1987. Consequent upon his acquittal, he approached the authorities by moving a representation on November 2, 1994 with a prayer to reinstate him on his original post, but the authorities did not pay any heed to the same. He sent several reminders and ultimately the instant petitioners reinstated him in service vide order dated October 29, 1999. He joined his duties on November 9, 1999 in pursuance of the reinstatement order. Before his reinstatement, he had filed the above mentioned O.A. for reinstatement and back wages, but after his reinstatement, the question of payment of back wages remained there.

(3.) Before the Tribunal, the instant petitioners did not dispute that the order of the Magistrate convicting the opposite party was set aside in appeal and he was acquitted vide judgment and order dated February 8, 1994. It was also not disputed that the opposite party was dismissed on his conviction, but after his acquittal in appeal, he was reinstated in service vide order dated October 29, 1999 pursuant to which he joined duties on November 9, 1999 But they took a plea that since the opposite party had not performed any duty, he is not entitled to any back wages.