S.S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THE petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the termination order dated 9.3.1990, contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. An interim order was granted by this Court on 22.1.1993 and the petitioner has been continuing on the basis of the interim order in service.
(2.) DURING the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner expired on 28.11.2006. Thereafter the heirs of the petitioner have moved an application for substitution and they have been substituted and brought on record in place of the petitioner. Thus, the termination order requires adjudication as the heirs are claiming the retiral dues of the petitioner, which are legally due to him. The petitioner was appointed by means of order dated 14.12.1989. The petitioner thereafter joined on the post in question on 1.1.1990. After joining of the petitioner the Settlement Officer, Consolidation sent information to the Consolidation, Commissioner, but while sending information the Settlement Officer, Consolidation committed a mistake regarding the dispatch number and the date on the basis of which the appointments have been given. The office of the Consolidation Commissioner directed the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by means of letter dated 7.3.1990 for lodging of F.I.R. under the relevant provisions of I.P.C. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation lodged the F.I.R. Thereafter, the case proceeded and the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal trial by means of judgment and order dated 7.12.2001 in Criminal Case No. 282 of 1997. The petitioner has also brought on record the letter dated 24.2.1993, by means of which the petitioner has been permitted to join on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court dated 22.1.1993. The petitioner had been working all along on the post in question, but on the basic salary. The other person, whose services have been terminated, has filed claim petition before the Public Services Tribunal and the claim petition of Arun Kumar Pandey was allowed and he was reinstated in service by means of judgment and order dated 4.7.1995. The petitioner based his claim on the basis of the aforesaid facts.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been working all throughout from 24.2.1993 and after acquittal of the petitioner in criminal case he is entitled to be reinstated with back wages as the charge against the petitioner of forged appointment letter was not established in trial. He also submits that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in his statement has admitted that the mistake was committed by him while sending the compliance report to the Consolidation Commissioner and on account of that the entire trouble arose. Fie, therefore, submits that neither the petitioner was at fault nor the appointment letter was forged in any manner and once the Criminal Court adjudicated upon the matter on merit after taking the evidence on record and considering the same, there is no occasion to continue the termination order any further. The petitioner's co -appointees were allowed to continue and one co -appointee, Arun Kumar Pandey filed claim petition before the Public Services Tribunal and his claim petition has been allowed by the Tribunal.;