SURINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURINDER Singh was appointed as a Mathematics Master on ad hoc basis from 16.12.1985. He asserts that his appointment was through the Employment Exchange after considering the claims of all eligible persons. On 26.4.1988, the petitioner was arrested and remained in custody upto 10.4.1989 with respect to a criminal case registered against him pertaining to offences punishable Under Sections 148/302/324/452 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. On 10.4.1989, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat acquitted the petitioner. The operative part of the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat reads:

(2.) PETITIONER seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the decision whereby it has been decided to treat the period of judicial custody of the petitioner as absence from duty and for a direction to the respondents to grant to the petitioner full salary and allowances and all other consequential benefits for the period 27.4.1988 to 21.5.1989. It is alleged that since the petitioner had been acquitted of all the charges by the Court, there is no question of treating the petitioner to be absent from duty because his services had never been terminated. Reference has been made to the case of one Ram Kumar, ad hoc Math Master who was working on ad hoc basis and remained in custody. As per the petitioner after he was acquitted, he was treated on duty for all intents and purposes. The true copy of the order so passed in his case has been annexed as Annexure P -8.

(3.) THE short question that thus comes up for consideration is as to whether the petitioner who was an ad hoc employee, after acquittal was reinstated, is entitled to full pay and allowances for the period when he was in judicial custody during the pendency of the trial. Needless to emphasise that the petitioner has since been acquitted. This question has been considered more often than once and reference to some of the precedents on the subject will not be out of place to mention. In the case of Jagmohan Lal v. State of Punjab there was a criminal case against the Government employee. During the pendency of the same, the said employee was suspended. He was acquitted. It was held that he was entitled to full pay and allowances. Rules 7.3 and 7.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part -I were considered. In paragraph 7 this Court held as under : -