(1.) EVEN if the facts stated by the respondents are taken into consideration even then the petitioner would be entitled to the relief as claimed by him. The facts as stated in the objections preferred by respondent 1 to 3 are being taken note of. The petitioner was brought on Regular Temporary Establishment vide order passed by Chief Engineer Ravi Tawi Irrigation Complex, Jammu on 02.07.1990. He was appointed to the post of Gateman in the grade of Rs. 630 -940/ -. This grade is per the respondents was upgraded as Rs. 750 -940/ -. The fact that the petitioner came to be appointed on daily wages earlier is admitted in the reply given in para 4 to 9 of the petition. In this it is submitted that:
(2.) IT is, accordingly, submitted that it was not mandatory on the part of department to consider the petitioner on work charge establishment w.e.f. 01.12.1979. It is submitted that the petitioner accepted the status w.e.f. 02.07.90. It is accordingly submitted that the petitioner cannot claim benefit of the grade of operator i.e. Rs. 1400 -2600/ - the position of law is well settled even where some criminal case is pending against a person but if ultimately he is acquitted then he cannot be deprived of the service benefit. This view was expressed by a Division Bench of this court in Mohd Ishq Bhat Vs. State of J&K and others reported as 2000 KLJ 274. What is said in para 5 is reproduced below:
(3.) THE aforementioned observations would be fully attracted to the facts of the case. As a matter of facts of the case. Asa matter of fact, the case of the petitioner, is on better footings. He has never been convicted. The police authorities have found no case against the petitioner. As the lodging of F.I.R. was the only factor which lead to the non -consideration of the claim of the petitioner for promotion of the dated when he became eligible and as that factor is no -longer relevant, the petitioner is entitled to the same relief w.e.f. the same date as was given to private respondents 4 to 8.