PANCHDEO SINGH Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant appeal, the short question that falls for consideration is as to whether the appellant after acquittal in a criminal case is entitled to back wages. The learned single Judge in terms of impugned judgment passed in W. P. (S) No. 5029/2003 did not interfere with the order passed by the authority rejecting his claim of back wages.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:

(3.) THE appellant was working as Fan operator/switch Board Attendant at angarpathra Colliery, Katras, a unit of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited. It appears that he was involved in a criminal case under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted by the Court of Sessions Judge in terms of judgment dated December 23, 1988 and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. In view of the conviction of the appellant in a criminal case, he was dismissed from service with effect from April 22, 1989. However, against the said judgment of conviction, the appellant preferred appeal which was dismissed by the High Court in terms of judgment dated September 14, 1999. Thereafter, the appellant moved before the supreme Court and the appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court and order of conviction and sentence was set aside in terms of judgment dated December 7, 2001. Consequent upon the acquittal, the appellant made a representation before the concerned respondents praying for his reinstatement with effect from April 22, 1989, but the same was rejected. The petitioner then moved this Court by filing a writ petition being W. P. (S) No. 3211/2002 which was allowed in terms of order dated April 30, 2001 and the order of refusal of reinstatement passed by the authority was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the respondents for its reconsideration. The petitioner then filed another representation for his reinstatement and also for payment of back wages. On consideration of the representation, the concerned authority in terms of order dated april 28,2003 held that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service but he is not entitled to back wages and consequential benefits. The petitioner thereafter joined the service on June 23, 2003. The petitioner again filed a representation before the concerned authority for payment of back wages, but nothing was done.