MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working with the respondent-University as Beldar. He was implicated in a case FIR no. 128 dated 11.7.96 registered under Section 304B IPC at P.S. Civil Lines, Patiala in which he was convicted by the learned Trial Court but in appeal before this Court he was acquitted of all the charges against him. During this interregnum when he was facing the consequences of criminal prosecution he superannuated and after his acquittal he pressed for the release of his financial benefits accruing to him on account of the service rendered by him. The respondents did not grant him the financial benefits despite the representations and legal notice served upon them by the petitioner leading to the filing of the instant writ petition where in response to the same the respondents have denied the liability to pay anything to the petitioner on account of the principle of no pay for no work and at the same time the respondents have stated that the matter is pending before the Vice Chancellor for approval and no action has been taken on his representation. After hearing learned counsel for the parties whose contentions are on the lines of the stand taken by them in the writ petition and the reply respectively, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of retiral benefits accruing to him on account of the period in which he was deprived of the opportunity to serve the respondents on account of criminal prosecution pending against him. Since he has earned his acquittal, any disciplinary proceedings emanating from the initiation of criminal prosecution against him would be of no consequence leading to the solitary conclusion that he would be deemed to be in service for all intents and purposes.

(2.) The respondents would however be well within their rights to deny the pay to the petitioner on account of principle of no pay for no work but under no circumstance they can deny him the benefit of this period while commuting the retiral benefits.

(3.) One would find sustenance of this view from few judgments of this Court which resonate the same principle. Mathura Dass Gupta vs. Superintending Engineer, Circle Office, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. And others, 2008 3 RSJ 251, Shashi Kumar vs. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and another, 2005 1 SCT 576 and Chander Singh Dalal vs. Haryana Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Ltd.,2008 3 RSJ 268.