Dariyao Singh Vashishtha v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 3244 of 2013 Dariyao Singh Vashishtha, Aged about 62 years, S/o Late Shri Deenasingh, Ganjpara Balod, P.S. Balod, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Department of Agriculture Ministry, P.S. Rakhi, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board, through the Managing Director, Bij Bhawan, GE Road, Telibandha, Raipur, P.S. City Kotwali, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Through the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Balod, P.S. Tahsil and Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh.

---Respondents For Petitioner :- Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent 1/State:- Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Dy. A.G. For Respondents 2 & 3 :- Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 05/10/2021 1.

Petitioner herein calls in question the order dated 22/06/2012 (Annexure P/1) by which he has been denied the benefit of salary and other allowances

from the date of termination i.e. 31/08/2001 till the date of superannuation i.e. 31/11/2010 on the principle of 'no work no pay'.

2.

Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that though petitioner has been acquitted honorably by order dated 29/01/2011 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 663/2001, yet he has not been given salary and other allowances from the date of termination till the date of superannuation on the principle of 'no work no pay' whereas Rule 37(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mandi Board Viniyam, 1998 would apply and petitioner would be entitled for salary and other date of superannuation as he was not responsible for delay in the conclusion of the proceeding, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside to that extent.

3.

Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned State counsel for respondent No. 1/State, and Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 would support the impugned order.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records.

5. The petitioner was convicted for offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 24/07/2001 by the jurisdictional criminal Court and consequently, he was terminated from service on 31/08/2001 under Regulation 34 read with regulation 30(5) of the Regulations of 1998. Thereafter, he was acquitted honorably by order dated 29/01/2011 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 663/2001 and he was taken back in service. It is the case of the petitioner that from the date of his termination till the date of his superannuation, he has not been given salary and other allowances on the principle of 'no work no pay'.

6. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Regulation 37 of the Regulations of 1998, which states as under :- "37.

पननसथथपनथककयजथनयपरवयतन, भतयतथथसयवथकक अवधधककगणनथ:

(1) जबसयवथकय ककसससदसयककधजसयपदचयपतकरकदयथगयथ हक, हटथ कदयथ गयथ हक यथ धनलधबत कर कदयथ गयथ हक पनन सथथधपतकरकदयथजथएतकपननसथथपनथकथआदयशदयनयकय धलए सकमपथधधकथरसधनमधलधखतबथततपरधवचथरकरयगथऔरधवधशष आदयशदयगथ:- (क) सयवथकयसदसयकककतरवसयउसककअनपपधसथधतकक कथलथवधधकयधलएकदएजथनयवथलयवयतनतथथभतयकयसमबनधम, (ख) उक कथलथवधध कक कतरव पर वतसत कक गई कथलथवधधमथनथजथएगथयथनहहइससमबनधम|

(2) जहथहउपधवधनयम(1) मउललयधखतपथधधकथरसककयहरथय हकककसयवथकयसदसयककपरसतरहसयदकषमपककरकदयथगयथह वधनलबनपरसतरहअसलगतथथतकउसयपरथवयतनतथथभतथ कदएजथयमगयजकवहउसधसथधतमपथनयकथअधधकथरसहकतथयकद उसय यथथ धसथधत, पदचयपत, हटथयथ यथ धनलधबत न ककयथ गयथ हकतथ| (3) अनयमथमलतमसदसयककऐसथवयतनतथथभतयउसअनपपथत मकदएजथवमगयजहसथधनयपधकपथधधकथरसअवधथररतकरय| परनतपउपधवधनयम(2) यथ(3) कय अधसनभततकथथभपगतथन समसतअनयशतरकयअधयथधसनरहतयहएहकगथ, धजनकयअधसनऐसय भतयअनपजययहकतयह| परनतपयहऔरभसककऐसयवयतनतथथ भतत कथ यह अनपपथत धनयमत कय अधसन अनपजयय जसवथन धनवथरह तथथअनयभतयसयकमनहहहकगथ|"

7. A careful perusal of the impugned order would show that petitioner's case for grant of backwages from the date of termination till the date of superannuation has not been considered and it has been directed that petitioner will not be paid salary and other allowances from the date of termination till the date of superannuation on the principle of 'no work no pay' whereas in light of Regulation 37(2) of the Regulations of 1998, the petitioner will be entitled for salary and other date of superannuation as he was acquitted honorably by order dated 29/01/2011 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 663/2001. Accordingly, serial No. 2 of the impugned order stating that petitioner is not entitled for salary and other

date of superannuation on the principle of no work no pay is hereby set aside.

8. Matter is remitted to the competent authority i.e. Managing Director of respondent No. 2 to consider and dispose of petitioner's claim for salary and other allowances from the date of termination till the date of superannuation relying upon Regulation 37(2) of the Rules of 1998 by passing a reasoned and speaking order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and the question of backwages will be decided by the competent authority as per law on the basis of material available on record within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet