SARAN DASS Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Letters Patent Appeal lays challenge to Judgment dtd. 6/4/2021, whereby learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissed CWPOA No.5629 of 2020, having been filed by the Appellant/Petitioner (in short the "Petitioner"), seeking therein direction to the Respondents to count the period of incarceration either in police or Judicial Custody, ending on his acquittal, in FIR No.207 of 2021, under Sec. 20 of ND &PS Act, registered at PS Chamba, towards seniority and pensionary benefits.

(2.) Precisely, the facts necessary for adjudication of the case at hand are that the Petitioner was initially engaged as daily wage Beldar in IPH Sub Division Dhawala, Division Chamba at Guwari Khundel Scheme in the month of August, 1994, and since then, he had been working continuously with 240 days in each calendar year till 1/10/2001, when he was apprehended by the police in connection with FIR No.207 of 2001, registered under Sec. 20 of the NDPS Act. Pursuant to registration of aforesaid case, Petitioner came to be arrested. After completion of investigation, police presented charge sheet in the Competent Court of law and ultimately, he was tried in Session Trial No.47 of 2001. Since prosecution failed to prove the allegation leveled against the Petitioner in the FIR detailed herein above, he was acquitted on 30/11/2002. During the course of the trial, Petitioner remained disengaged from the service, however, after his acquittal, he was reengaged w.e.f. 11/12/2002 i.e. 11 days after the date of acquittal of the Petitioner by the Competent Court of law.

(3.) Since Respondent did not count the period of absence during which Petitioner remained in the police and Judicial Custody, he was not regularized in December, 2003 on completion of eight years continuous service w.e.f. his initial engagement in August, 1994. To the contrary, Respondents considered the engagement of the Petitioner w.e.f. 11/12/2002, as fresh engagement and thereafter, after completion of eight years period starting from December, 2002, his services were regularized vide Order, dtd. 15/4/2012. Though Petitioner claimed before the Respondents that he is entitled to be treated on duty for continuity and regularization of his service during the period he remained in Police/Judicial Custody between 1/10/2001 and 30/11/2002 and the period between acquittal and rejoining i.e. 30/11/2002 to 11/12/2002, but aforesaid prayer of him was not paid any heed, as a result thereof, Petitioner was compelled to approach the erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No.7065 of 2018, which subsequently on account of its abolishment came to be transferred to the Writ Court for adjudication and was re-registered as C.W.P.O.A. No.5629 of 2020, praying therein for following reliefs: