R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) PETITIONER , by means of the present petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 24.6.85 passed by the District Magistrate, Banda Respondent No. 2, terminating the services of the Petitioner. By means of amendment application, which was allowed by this Court, following reliefs have also been asked In the writ petition: (f) To Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to pay the unpaid full salary with allowances for the period 24.6.85 to 17.6.89 (between the period of termination and re -employment/fresh appointment) with 18% interest thereon within one month. (g) To issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to treat the intervening period between the date of dismissal and the date of fresh appointment as on duty for all purposes including for the computation of seniority, relaxation of salary and promotional benefits. (h) To issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to treat the order of fresh appointment dated 17.6.89 as order of reinstatement.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 22.10.82 Petitioner was appointed as extra -copyist In the Collectorate, Banda on account of death of his father Sri Vijai Narain Khare Under the provisions of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying -in -Harness Rules, 1947, According to Petitioner, he had to finish the urgent official work assigned to him and the same had to be put up in the meeting, he stayed in the office of S.D.M. Baveroo, district Banda, which was got locked by the Chaukidar, whereupon the S.D.M., Baveroo lodged a first information report Under Sections 120B, 192, 451 and 468, I.P.C. against the Chaukidar and other persons including the Petitioner. Thereafter, the S.D.M. made a recommendation for transfer of the Petitioner to some other place as well as placing him under suspension. Whereupon the District Magistrate, Banda passed the order dated 24.6.85 instead of suspending or transferring the Petitioner, terminating the services of the Petitioner. Petitioner challenges the validity of the said order dated 24.6.85 by the means of the present petition as stated above. The writ petition was admitted, but no interim relief was granted to the Petitioner. In the meanwhile, Petitioner and two other accused persons were tried by the criminal court for the criminal charges leveled against them and they were ultimately acquitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda vide his order dated 28.5.87, which became final as no appeal or revision was filed against the same by anybody. On the basis of the provisions contained in Rule 54A of U.P. Fundamental Rules contained in Financial Hand Book (Vol. II, Part II to IV), Petitioner made an application for reinstatement. For the purpose of present case, it is necessary to reproduce the Sub -Rules (1) and (3) of Rule 54A of the Fundamental Rules, which read as Under: (1) Where the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by a court of law and such Government servant is reinstated without holding any further enquiry, the period of absence from duty shall be regularised and the Government servant shall be paid pay and allowances in accordance with the provisions of Sub -Rules (2) or (3) subject to the directions, if any of the court. (3) If the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by the Court on the merits of the case, the period intervening between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement including the period of suspension preceding such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and the date of reinstatement shall be treated as duty for all purposes and he shall be paid the full pay and allowances for the period, to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement as the case may be." When no heed was paid, to the representation dated 5.6.87 filed by the Petitioner, by the District Magistrate, another representation dated 21.8.87 was filed by him.
(3.) IT would not be out of place to state that the other two co -accused persons, namely, Sri Vijai Chaukldar and Prem Bihari Bajpai (Clerk) after their acquittal in the criminal case were already reinstated on then original posts, therefore, the Petitioner invited the attention of the authorities concerned towards the said facts also as well as he moved an application for amendment of the writ petition and the same was allowed as stated above and has also placed on record the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda.;