SAT PAL DHAWAN Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in the writ petition is the entitlement of the petitioner to be paid the terminal benefits on the basis of the last pay drawn at the time of superannuation on 31.1.2003. The grievance of the petitioner was that he had been placed under suspension on 10.3.1998 for alleged commission of criminal offence and pension was being paid on the basis of the pay drawn at the time when the suspension order was issued in the year 1998. The Counsel says that the criminal Court conviction was set aside. It is the case where if the suspension order was only on the basis of Criminal Court conviction and if it was set aside he was bound to be reinstated and treated to be in service till the period when he was superannuated on 31.3.2003. The pensionary benefits and the other terminal benefits will be calculated only on the basis of the last drawn pay on the date of his superannuation on 31.3.2003. At the previous hearing on 5.1.2012, I had directed the respondents to take instruction on the petitioner's claim. Today, the Counsel appearing for the respondents seeks some more time to secure instructions. I decline the request and proceed to pass the order directing that the calculation shall be made on the basis of last pay drawn as on the date of his superannuation and the arrears shall be calculated and released to the petitioner with interest @ 6% from the date when it fell due till the date of payment.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner also contends that he should also be paid full wages during the period when he was under suspension. The cases where the Rules provide for suspension for pendency of criminal case, the fact that the conviction is later set aside cannot obtain right to claim the full wages at all times. If the petitioner could not have been employed as per the Conduct Rules providing for suspension on account of pendency of a criminal case, the principle of no work no pay will apply. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the situation in Reserve Bank of India v. Bhopal Singh, 1994 1 SCC 541 where the employee is "absent on his own involvement in misconduct and the Bank is not in any way responsible for keeping him away from duties. The bank, therefore, can not be saddled with liability to pay him his salary and allowances for that period. That will be again the principle of 'no work, no pay' and positively inequitable to those who have to work and cash their pay."

(3.) There is no scope for accommodating the claim of the petitioner that he should be paid full wages during the period of his suspension. The writ petition is allowed to the extent provided in Para 2 above.