IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1721 of 2008
Date of Decision: 4.12.2008
State of Punjab and others .... Appellants
vs.
Himmat Singh .... Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla. Present: Mr. H.S. Gill, DAG, Punjab, for the appellants.
Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate for the respondent.
Rajive Bhalla, J, (Oral)
CM No.5377-C of 2008
Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay in filing of
the appeal.
Heard counsel for the parties,
For the reasons stated in the application, namely the bona fide
delays in processing the file, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned.
RSA No.1721 of 2008
The appellants challenge judgments and decrees dated
22.09.2007 and 16.02.2008, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Bathinda, and the District Judge, Bathinda decreeing the suit filed by the
respondent and dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants.
The respondent was suspended pending adjudication of a
criminal case registered pursuant to FIR No.22 dated 21st October, 2003,
under Sections 365/342/323 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the admitted
case of the parties that the respondent was acquitted and as a result was
reinstated and the period of suspension was treated as leave of the kind
due. The only dispute that survived and led to the filing of the suit was
refusal of the appellants to pay wages, over and above the suspension
allowance for the period of suspension. The suit filed by the respondent
RSA No.1721 of 2008 -2-
claiming full wages for the period of suspension was decreed and the
appeal filed by the State of Punjab was dismissed.
Counsel for the appellants contends that the respondent was
acquitted by grant of a benefit of doubt. The appellants were justified in
refusing to pay full wages for the suspension period, as during this period,
the respondent has not served the department.
Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that
there is no justification for the department to deny full wages as the
respondent has been acquitted. Even otherwise, the respondent did not
face trial for any departmental impropriety or offence and therefore, the
findings recorded by the courts below do not warrant interference.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned
judgments. The courts below are concurrent in their opinion that the
appellants are not justified in declining full wages for the period of
suspension. As noticed hereinabove, the respondent was suspended as
he was arrayed as an accused in a criminal trial. After his acquittal, he was
reinstated and the period of his absence was treated as leave of the kind
due. Both the courts below have held that as suspension does not relate to
any departmental impropriety or infraction the appellants had no right to
deny payment of full wages for the period of suspension. I find no error in
the process of reasoning or the conclusions recorded by the courts below
as would raise a substantial question of law. The respondent’s acquittal,
his subsequent reinstatement and the order treating the period of absence
as leave of the kind due, would entitle him to receive full wages for the
period of suspension. Even otherwise, the controversy herein is squarely
covered against the appellants by a judgment of Division Bench titled as
“Shashi Kumar vs. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nagam and another” 2005
LIC 729.
RSA No.1721 of 2008 -3-
As no substantial question of law arises for consideration, the
appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
4.12.2008 (Rajive Bhalla) sk Judge