NARESH KUMAR MEHTA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first prayer in the present writ petition is that the suspension period of the petitioner from 09.08.2005 to 22.03.2006 be considered as duty period for all intents and purposes.

(2.) The petitioner was suspended from service on 09.08.2005 due to his involvement in a criminal case. He was reinstated on 17.03.2006 and joined on 23.03.2006. Subsequently, he was acquitted by the Special Judge, Jhajjar, vide order and judgment dated 06.12.2011.

(3.) Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Surjit Singh v. State of Haryana and another, CWP No.1326 of 2013, decided on 30.04.2015. While relying on the various judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court including the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Jaipal Singh, 2004 (1) SCT 108 as also the judgment rendered in the case of Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.26122 of 2013, against which LPA No.514 of 2014 was also dismissed, the learned Single Bench in the case of Surjit Singh (supra) held that the respondents were bound to consider the suspension period as a duty period for all intent purposes by holding in para Nos.19 and 20 as under:-