SRIDAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition for writ, the petitioner is claiming a directions for the respondents to give him salary for the period from 1983 to 1996, annual grade increments, selection grades not accorded and fixation of pay in the revised pay-scales. A direction is further sought for extending all post-retiral benefits to the petitioner by computing his pension after awarding annual increments, selection grades and making of fixation in the revised pay-scales. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that while working as Sub-Inspector in Rajasthan Police, the petitioner was placed under suspension under an order dated 6.12.1983 being implicated as an accused in a criminal case. The petitioner was subjected to a trial for the offence punishable under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During trial of case and facing the suspension under order dated 6.12.1983, he attained the age of superannuation, hence was retired from service 31.1.1996. The trial concern ultimately came to be concluded under a judgment dated 17.10.2011 passed by the Special Judge, Act Cases, Jodhpur which acquitted the petitioner from all the charges levelled. After acquittal from the charges pertaining to the offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the petitioner claimed for all post-retiral benefits after awarding the annual grade increments and selection grades detained due to pendency of criminal trial. Suffice it to mention that the pay of the petitioner too was not revised by the respondents due to pendency of criminal trial. On getting no positive response from the respondents, this petition for writ was presented before this Court on 17.2.2012.

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is an old man of 75 years and after his acquittal from the criminal charges no reason exists for not extending the post-retiral benefits after awarding selection grades and annual grade increments to him by making fixation in the revised pay-scales.

(3.) While meeting with the arguments advanced, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner, although, has been acquitted by the trial court but an application has been filed by the State Government to have, a leave to appeal the judgment passed by the trial court, and looking to the pendency of the application, no relief as claimed for can be given.