- (1.) The petitioner's case was that he was taken in service on 31.12.1986 and that he should be granted all the benefits during the period when he had been arrested till he was acquitted, namely, from the period from 29.10.1984 to 26.12.1986.
(2.) The claim of the petitioner is contested by the Management on the ground that the petitioner was absenting himself and his application for leave made on 03.10.1984 was rejected and he had not joined despite rejection of his leave. A subsequent application for leave had also been rejected. According to the Management, therefore, at the time when he was arrested on 29.10.1984, he was already on unauthorized leave. It is further contended that it was not as if the petitioner had remained in jail for the entire period but even as conceded by him in the writ petition, he had been released on bail on 04.09.1985 and he had not sought for reinstatement during that period. The demand came for the first time only after he was acquitted. There is no scope for treating him as being in service to afford to him the claim for salary and other benefits during the said period.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on three decisions, two of which of this Court, namely, Shashi Kumari Versus Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and anotehr,2005 1 RSJ 718; Mathura Dass Gupta Versus Superintending Engineer, Circle O ice, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others, 2008 3 RSJ 251, and a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brahma Chandra Gupta Versus Union of India, 1984 AIR(SC) 380 in support of his claim. In Shashi Kumar's case, referred to above, this Court relied on its own earlier ruling to hold that when an employee, who had been removed from service after conviction was reinstated after an acquittal, would be entitled to be paid the full wages. In Mathura Dass Gupta's , the issue again was that when the employee had been acquitted of the charges levelled against him, a reinstatement ought to mean restoration of all consequential benefits. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brahma Chandra Gupta's case , suspension of employee following criminal prosecution would again provide to him a right of not merely a reinstatement but held the salary withheld during the suspension period.;