- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State. The petitioner has approached this court for a direction upon the respondents to pay back wages and consequential benefits for the period during which he remained under suspension and dismissal from service, as the respondents have reinstated him by office order no. 780/06 vide Memo No. 1625 dated 20th of July 2006 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Lohardaga pursuant to the judgment of the Division Bench of this court passed in LPA No. 17 of 2006 whereby the order of the dismissal of the petitioner from service was quashed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the said order of dismissal, was set aside.
(2.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the dismissal had taken place on the basis of the three charges which were the subject matter of criminal proceedings against the petitioner in connection with Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 139 of 1992 registered under sections 376/ 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the Division Bench of this court found that the disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal from service upon the petitioner without any finding rendered by the competent criminal court about the guilt of the petitioner. The petitioner was reinstated thereafter Although respondents have stated in their counter affidavit that the State had chosen to prefer an SLP, but upon specific inquiry made by the petitioner, it has transpired that no Special Leave Petition has been preferred on their behalf and the order passed in LPA No. 17 of 2006 has attained finality. In the circumstances, it is submitted that even in the order of reinstatement (Annexure-2), the Superintendent of Police, Lohardaga (Respondent No. 4) has only observed, in respect of the petitioner's claim for salary for the period he remained under suspension and dismissal, that the decision in respect of the same would be taken after obtaining guidelines from the senior officers Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by this court in the case of Mahendra Harizan vs. State of Jharkhand, 2006 2 JCR 111 and submits that when the order of dismissal or removal from service is set aside by the court and the order is silent on the question of back wages, it would mean that the employee/petitioner concerned would be entitled to back wages as a matter of course.
(3.) From the order contained at annexure-2 and the affidavit of the respondents, it appears that they have not taken any decision in that regard Annexure-A to the counter affidavit also does not resolve the issue, as by the said communication of the Superintendent of Police, Lohardaga dated 19th September 2006 also, it has been indicated that suitable guidelines are required to be issued by the Superior Authority in that regard. From the facts narrated herein above, it appears that the respondents have not yet taken any decision in respect of claim of the petitioner for back wages for the period he remained under suspension and dismissal, although he has been reinstated pursuant to the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this court in LPA No. 17 of 2006 vide annexure-2. In these circumstances, the Superintendent of Police, Lohardaga is directed to take a decision in respect of the claim of the petitioner for payment of back wages for the period he remained under suspension and dismissal, within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, which shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.;