Food Corporation Of India And ANR v. Subhash Rani

LPA-1191-2019 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1191-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.05.2026 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR.

....Appellants

Versus

SUBHASH RANI

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR *****

Present:

Mr. Krishan Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

***** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral) 1.

The appeal arises out of the judgment dated 11.04.2019 of the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition of the respondent has been allowed and she has been granted salary for the period her deceased husband remained out of service on account of his implication in a criminal case. Ultimately, the respondent-petitioner's husband has been honorably acquitted. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon Regulation 66(8) of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1971 (for short 'the 1971 Regulations'), which is reproduced hereinafter:-
   



         

  



        



  

 

    

       

                 

    



     



     

   







      

     

  



   

  

 



!

LPA-1191-2019 (O&M) 2 2.

The learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that the respondent-petitioner's husband died during the pendency of the criminal appeal and consequently, service and retiral benefits have been directed to be paid to the respondent-petitioner.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellants places reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & others Vs. Jaipal Singh 2004 (1) SCC 121 and learned Single Judge of this Court in Balbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana & others 2014 (3) SCT 451, to submit that since the implication in the criminal case was not attributed to the department, as such, the liability for payment of salary cannot be imposed upon the employer, when the incarceration was not attributed to the department itself. 4.

Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner states that the relevant Rules in the present case are distinct, and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jaipal Singh (supra) has no applicability in the facts of the present case.

5.

Perusal of the records would indicate that on account of conviction and sentence awarded to the respondent-petitioner's husband, the employer took a decision to dismiss him from service by referring to Regulation 63 of the 1971 Regulations. The regulations relevant in the present case clearly state that where the employee is honorably acquitted, then he would be entitled to full pay and allowances. It is this provision of the Regulation which has been interpreted by the learned Single Judge to grant the relief to the respondent-petitioner. Considering the fact that respondent-petitioner's husband has already died and the substantial benefits have already been released to the respondent, we are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction in the facts of the present case to interfere

LPA-1191-2019 (O&M) 3 with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The question of law pleaded by the appellants is left open to be examined in an appropriate matter. 6.

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly.

7.

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) JUDGE (ROHIT KAPOOR) 08.05.2026 JUDGE mohit goyal Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No