news details |
|
|
| Employee under-trial, in a criminal case, is not entitled to salary: HC | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, July 8: Justice MA Chowdhary of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court holds that an employee who undergone custody as an under-trial, in a criminal case, is not entitled to salary and allowances for that period.
This significant judgment has been passed in a petition filed by one Sher Singh seeking direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner as on duty without any break during the period he remained in jail and pay him full pay and allowance of that period.
Petitioner has asserted that while he was working as Beldar (Spl) with the respondent-NHPC in Pakal Dul Hydroelectric Project at Kishtwar on his transfer from Salal Power Station, he proceeded on casual leave w.e.f. 06.04.2009 to 13.04.2009; that during this period, he was implicated in a false case registered vide FIR No.55/2009 at Police Station Reasi for the murder of one Lachhan Devi and finally the trial Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Reasi acquitted him on 15.10.2010; that immediately after being released from jail, he joined his duty on 20.10.2010 and came to know that he had been suspended by the respondent w.e.f. 17.04.2009, without holding any enquiry; that his suspension was revoked by the respondent-Corporation vide impugned Order No.NH/PDHEP/HR/PF(03)10/5210-17 dated 27.06.2011 treating his service while in custody as "on duty? without any break. Petitioner, however, alleged that his pay and other allowances were not paid to him, for the period of his incarceration.
Justice MA Chowdhary after hearing both the sides observed that since the petitioner was arrested in a criminal case as he had involved himself and the respondent-Corporation had no role either in registration of a criminal case against him or in his custody, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court s, more so when an employee or a public servant on his acquittal, the employer cannot in any manner be found fault with for having kept him out of service since the law obliged an under trial to be so kept out and not to be retained in service. Otherwise also, petitioner had not worked for the period of more than 1 ½ years due to his custody and in the considered opinion of this Court, is not entitled to the back wages. Had the custody of the petitioner been due to the respondent-employer, in that situation the things would have been different as in case of departmental inquiry with regard to misconduct etc.
Court held that the petitioner an employee of the respondent-Corporation, who had undergone custody as an under-trial, in a criminal case, is not entitled to salary and allowances for that period. The plea in this behalf made by the petitioner, is thus found to be misconceived and is hereby rejected.
Counsel for the petitioner, having reconciled to the legal position of the case, submits that since the petitioner has superannuated from his service, the respondent-Corporation be directed to release his pensionary benefits, to which he is entitled on his retirement. Since no such plea is subject matter of this petition, no positive direction with regard to this plea can be passed on the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner shall be at liberty to move a representation to the respondent-Corporation for grant of terminal benefits on his superannuation and the respondent-Corporation shall consider the same. If the petitioner does not succeed in his endeavour, he shall be entitled to work out and avail the available legal remedy.
With these observations, High Court dismissed the petition.
—JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
