Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 620 (ALL)

Ram Gopal Saini v. State of U. P.

2023-03-01

RAJAN ROY

body2023
JUDGMENT Rajan Roy, J. On 22.3.2021, the following order was passed: "Heard. The petitioner shall implead the Regional Higher Education Officer, Lucknow as an opposite party in the petition. The petitioner claims to have been acquitted vide judgement dated 02.06.2020 in Reference No. 01 of 2017 of the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. It is only on account of being jailed consequent to his conviction by the Trial Court that he could not perform his duties, though he was a regular employee and now that he has been acquitted, he has approached opposite party nos. 4 and 5 for being allowed to join, but they are not allowing him. Issue notice to the opposite party nos. 4 and 5. List this case on 29.04.2021 as fresh. In the meantime, the Regional Higher Education Officer, Lucknow is directed to look into the matter on a representation to be submitted by the petitioner before him and do the needful as may be permissible in law. He shall inform the Court accordingly on the next date" 2. On being asked Shri R. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel informed that Regional Higher Education Officer, Lucknow has written to the Principal to take a decision in the matter as he is the Competent Authority of Class IV employees such as the petitioner. The counsel for the opposite party no. 4 - Management of the Institution is present, he says that he has written to Regional Higher Education Officer, Lucknow for seeking his opinion. 3. Fact of the matter is that petitioner was convicted of the offense punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. by the trial court and a reference bearing Capital Sentence No. 1 of 2017 was made to the High Court for confirmation of death sentence imposed upon him. The said reference was answered by Division Bench of this Court on 6.2.2020 in the negative meaning thereby that the petitioner herein was not found guilty of the offence alleged and the appeal was allowed. 4. This happened on 6.2.2020. Prior to it, since 6.5.2013, the petitioner was in jail. However, consequential to his acquittal order 6.2.2020, bearing Capital Sentence No. 1 of 2017 and Criminal Appeal No. 358 of 2017, he was released from jail on 4.6.2020 as stated by petitioner's counsel but he has not been allowed to join on his Class IV post. 5. Prior to it, since 6.5.2013, the petitioner was in jail. However, consequential to his acquittal order 6.2.2020, bearing Capital Sentence No. 1 of 2017 and Criminal Appeal No. 358 of 2017, he was released from jail on 4.6.2020 as stated by petitioner's counsel but he has not been allowed to join on his Class IV post. 5. Learned counsel for the Management says that against the aforesaid judgement of the High Court dated 6.2.2020, Criminal Appeal No. 566-567 of 2020 (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6577-6578 of 2020 State of U.P. v. Ram Gopal Saini) has been preferred which is pending, however, on being asked whether judgement has been stayed, learned counsel could not place any stay order or any other interim order which may be an impediment in joining the petitioner on the Class IV post on which he was working till he was incarcerated in the aforesaid case. In this view of the matter, subject to any order being passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforesaid criminal appeal, the petitioner should be allowed to join on the Class IV post. He shall be paid salary month to month as per rules. As far as services benefits for the period he has remained incarcerated, they shall remain subject to result of criminal appeal pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court meaning thereby the same shall not be extended till the disposal of criminal appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This order shall be complied within fifteen days from its receipt by the concerned parties. 6. The petition is disposed of.