RAM PRAVESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-2005-8-282
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on August 10,2005

RAM PRAVESH SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
State of U.P. and others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

TARUN AGARWALA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a constable and was placed under suspension by an order dated 18.1.1994 on the ground that a Criminal Case No. 122 of 1993 was lodged against him. The Competent Authority by an order dated 13.8.1999 revoked the suspension order and reinstated the petitioner pending disposal of the criminal case and departmental inquiry, if any. The order also indicated that the allowances payable during the suspension period would be considered after the decision of the case or at a later stage.
(2.) THE petitioner alleged that he made several representations to the authority to reconsider the matter and pay the remaining amount of salary for the suspended period and eventually filed Writ Petition No. 41887 of 2004, before this Court which was disposed of by an order dated 6.10.2004, directing the authorities to decide his representation preferably within a period of three months. The representation of the petitioner, was rejected by the authority by an order dated 20.6.2005. Consequently, the present writ petition. The impugned order indicates stated that the petitioner, had been convicted and given life imprisonment by judgment a dated 3.12.2003 of the Criminal Court, against which the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Appellate Court, which is pending. The Competent Authority, therefore, rejected the representation of the petitioner, on the ground that till the disposal of the appeal, no orders on his pay could be passed.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order was patently erroneous and was liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that under Rule 54-B(1) of the petitioner, was entitled to be paid the pay for the period of suspension pursuant to the order of reinstatement. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is, that since the petitioner's suspension was revoked by an order dated 13.8.1999, the petitioner was entitled for full pay during the period of suspension, i.e., from 18.1.1994 to 13.8.1999 under Rule 54-B(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules, Volume-II, Parts 2 to 4.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.