SINGAM RAMAKRISHNA Vs. BHARAT DYNAMICS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order, dtd. 21/6/2024, passed in W.P.No.2196 of 2019 by a learned Single Judge of this Court, the present Writ Appeal is filed.

(2.) Heard Sri Muppu Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. V. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents had appeared through online.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant had contended that the appellant was appointed as Junior Technician with the respondents in 1987 and subsequently, he was promoted as Senior Master Technician. The appellant was placed under suspension on 22/12/2006 on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case vide Cr.No.335 of 2006 under Sec. 302 of I.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that the appellant was convicted by the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in S.C.No.407 of 2007 vide judgment, dtd. 11/6/2008. Thereafter, the appellant has preferred a Criminal Appeal No.1556 of 2009 before the High Court and this Court vide judgment, dtd. 8/7/2014 was pleased to allow the Criminal Appeal in favour of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that consequent upon conviction by the Sessions Court, the respondents have terminated his services on 31/10/2008. After his acquittal in a Criminal Appeal, the appellant has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.39296 of 2015 challenging his termination and this Court passed an interim order on 2/8/2016, directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the appellant, dtd. 10/3/2015 and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the interlocutory order, the respondents have reinstated the appellant into service vide proceedings, dtd. 1/9/2016. However, the respondents have not extended the consequential benefits.