C.W.P No. 12927 of 2008 ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P No. 12927 of 2008
Date of decision : February 12, 2009
Baldev Singh,
...... Petitioner (s)
v.
State of Haryana and others,
...... Respondent(s)
***
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Mr. V.S.Rana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana
***
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
***
AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral)
The petitioner had been appointed as Jail Warder. Later, during
verification it had transpired that he had been convicted for offences
punishable under Sections 325/323/341 of the IPC in case FIR No.382,
dated 6.12.1993. Consequently, he was dismissed from service. Thereafter,
in appeal against conviction, the petitioner was allowed to compound the
offences. After compounding, he filed an appeal before respondent No.2 for
reinstatement, which was allowed with the following order :-
” Keeping in view the above explained facts and
C.W.P No. 12927 of 2008 ::2::
circumstances of the case, his service record and various
judgments of the Supreme Court of India, have come to
the conclusion that Ex. Warder Baldev Singh should not
be dismissed from service. As such, his appeal is
accepted and he is taken back in service as Warder,
which will meet the ends of justice. As regard as the
period he remained out of service, no dues arrear of pay
is to be given as it is settled law of “No work no pay”.
After re-instatement he is posted at Sub Jail, Jagadhri.”
However, thereafter, order dated 3.4.2007 was passed in which
it was mentioned that not only would he be not entitled to arrears of pay for
the period he remained out of job but also he would not get even notional
benefit for the said period and the same would not be treated as qualifying
period for any purpose.
In the written statement no reason has been mentioned to
justify the subsequent order. As per the original order of reinstatement, the
petitioner could have been denied only pay for the period he remained out
of job but the said order did not envisage the other consequences which
have now visited the petitioner. No provision of law has been cited by the
respondents under which this power of review had been exercised. It is not
out of place to mention here that in an appeal filed against the order dated
4.12.2006, the appellate authority viz. the Principal Secretary, Home
specifically upheld the order dated 4.12.2006. On this score alone, the order
dated 3.4.2007 is liable to be set aside.
Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated
3.4.2007 is set aside and it is declared that except for pay the petitioner
C.W.P No. 12927 of 2008 ::3::
would be entitled to all other consequential benefits for the period he
remained out of job.
No costs.
( AJAY TEWARI ) February 12, 2009. JUDGE `kk'