RAM PAT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned in the present petition is the order dated 16.08.2013 (Annexure P-12) passed by Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation and W.R. Department, Haryana, Panchkula, vide which the claim of the petitioner for grant of gratuity, pension and other retiral dues was rejected.

(2.) The undisputed facts of the case are that petitioner Ram Pat had joined as work-charged Beldar on 01.01.1985. His services were regularised w.e.f. 01.04.1993. He retired from service on 31.03.2008. During his service, he was involved in a criminal case bearing FIR No.220, dated 11.06.1997 for the commission of offences punishable under Sec. 307 read with Sec. 34 IPC, registered as Police Station Sadar Rohtak. The petitioner remained in custody from 21.12.1999 to 18.02.2000. Ultimately, on 24.12.1999 i.e. during his service period, he was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak for the commission of offence punishable under Sec. 307 read with Sec. 34 Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00. The petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court, which was decided on 09.09.2009. This Court while disposing of the appeal on the basis of compromise effected between the parties, maintained the conviction of the petitioner but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by him and sentence of fine was made absolute. It is only after the decision of the appeal in the year 2009, the petitioner was not paid his gratuity and retiral benefits. Therefore, he approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.6858 of 2012, wherein this Court directed the respondent-Engineer-in- Chief to pass a speaking order on the representation of the petitioner dated 10.01.2012 (Annexure P10) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.08.2013 (Annexure P-12) has been passed. The operative part of the same reads as under:

(3.) The State in the reply has not disputed the factual position as detailed above. However, the plea has been taken that the departmental action is liable to be initiated against the petitioner, in view of his conviction by the trial court and he was liable to be dismissed from service in view of Art. 311 of the Constitution of India. However, due to lapse on the part of concerned Executive Engineer, neither departmental action was taken against him nor his services were terminated. Rather, the period he remained in custody was regularised and he was also allowed to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2008.