- (1.) Aggrieved of the inaction of the respondents for not releasing the admissible terminal benefits, the petitioner has instituted the instant writ application praying for the following relief(s):- "1) It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order of dismissal of the Petitioner dated 06.02.2007 be quashed and set aside on his acquittal in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.73/2007 dated 05.09.2013. 2) That a direction be issued to the Respondents to pay consequential benefits treating the Petitioner as in service and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and the Respondents be further directed to treat the period of suspension as on duty of the Petitioner and grant full salary of the said period from 10.05.2006 onwards. 3) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the humble petitioner. 4) Cost of the writ petition be quantified to the Petitioner."
(2.) Briefly, the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein are that the petitioner was appointed on 5th April, 1968, as a Peon for three months in the Office of the Executive Engineer (AD), R.S.E. Board, Alwar, followed by the order dated 9th September, 1971, to be treated as permanent for all practical purposes on the post of Peon ('C' Class IV STAFF), as reflected from the order (Annexure-2). The petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 10th May, 2006, for his implication in a criminal case for offence under Section 302 IPC. He was convicted by the Court of Sessions Judge (Fast Track-I), Alwar, vide judgment and order dated 8th January, 2007, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The respondents vide office order dated 6th February, 2007, terminated the employment of the petitioner invoking Rule 5 of the Employees Conduct Rules, 1962. The D.B. Criminal Appeal No.73/2007, assailing the legality and validity of the conviction and sentence instituted by the petitioner before the Rajasthan High Court, at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, was allowed acquitting him vide judgment and order dated 5th September, 2013. In the meantime, the erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short, 'R.S.E.B.'), on account of unbundling in the year 2000, five companies were formed. The petitioner was transferred to the Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (RRVPNL). During the pendency of D.B. Criminal Appeal, the petitioner retired on 28th February, 2007, attaining the age of superannuation. The respondents vide communication dated 16th June, 2007 and 2nd November, 2007, made the final payment of CPF/GPF to the tune of Rs.77,121/- and Rs.61,336/-, as reflected from the materials available on record. An amount of Rs.1,274/- was also paid on 8th March, 2008, as against CPF/GPF. The petitioner addressed the representation on 12th February, 2014, with a request for review his case in the face of his acquittal from the charge of offence under Section 302 IPC and prayed for grant of pension, gratuity and commutation, in accordance with criteria under circular dated 3rd September, 1975, in such matters. The representation as well as notice for demand of justice addressed on 10th May, 2014, evoked no response.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Saugath Roy, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, emphatically argued that the controversy raised herein is no more res-integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement on the issue by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. v. Nathu Ram, 2010 1 SCC 428; wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the specific provisions of Regulation 41 and circular dated 3rd September, 1975, held that the period from the date of dismissal to the date of acquittal, the employee should not be allowed pay and allowances less than what would have been admissible to him, had he remained under suspension. Approving the view expressed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors.;