Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 792 (HP)

Kamal Jeet Singh v. State of H. P.

2025-04-24

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. The instant petition has been filed for following substantive reliefs: “a. order passed by the respondents whereby the claim of the applicant has been rejected for back wages may kindly be quashed and set aside and the applicant my kindly be held entitled for the back wages from the date when the respondents have decided to take over the service of the applicant by issuing notification dated 19-9-2005 when the Schools and the service of the employees working therein were ordered to be taken over. b. Or in the alternative if the applicant is not entitled for the bake wages from the date of issuance of notification i.e. 19-9-2005 then the applicant may kindly be held entitled for back wages from 10th May 2006 when the service of the other employees along-with applicant has been taken over. c. Or In the alternative if the applicant is not entitled for the back wages then the respondents may kindly be directed to pay subsistence allowance to the applicant from the date of his suspension as per the rules.” 2. Facts, in brief, are that the Public High School, Charuru, District Una was an institution covered under Grant-in- aid Rules of the State Government and was accordingly getting 95% aid since 1993. The petitioner was working as Art and Craft teacher (D.M.) in the said school since 1988. 3. In 2005, the State Government took a decision to take over a number of schools covered under Grant-in-aid Rules along with services of the staff of such schools. Public High School, Charuru was also included. 4. On 10.05.2006, the State Government issued orders for taking over services of staff working in 10 schools including Public High School, Charuru. Though, the name of petitioner was also reflected, however, it was ordered that his service may not be taken over on account of his suspension w.e.f. 10.01.2006 as a result of his involvement in a criminal case. 5. The fact of the matter is that on 04.01.2006, a case under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 323 of IPC had been registered at Police Station, Una, in which the petitioner was arrayed as one of the accused. Later, Section 302 IPC was also added when victim Kesar Singh succumbed to injuries. 5. The fact of the matter is that on 04.01.2006, a case under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 323 of IPC had been registered at Police Station, Una, in which the petitioner was arrayed as one of the accused. Later, Section 302 IPC was also added when victim Kesar Singh succumbed to injuries. The petitioner was arrested and as a consequence of his incarceration, the Management Committee of Public High School, Charuru had ordered his suspension vide resolution dated 10.02.2006. Accordingly, the petitioner had been put under suspension w.e.f. 28.02.2006. 6. On trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una convicted the petitioner, however, he was acquitted by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 10.07.2013, passed in Criminal Appeal No.257 of 2007. The judgment passed by this Court attained finality. 7. In above background, the services of the petitioner were not taken over. After acquittal, the petitioner made a representation to respondents No.1 to 3 to take over his services from the date when the services of other staff of the school were taken over and to pay him the back wages. Respondent No.2, vide communication dated 30.05.2014 addressed to respondent No.3, conveyed the decision dated 20.5.2013 taken by the State Government to take over the services of the petitioner from the date when the services of other staff of Public High School Charuru were taken over. The request of the petitioner for benefit of back wages was denied. 8. Accordingly, respondent No.3 issued office order dated 03.07.2014, Annexure A-8, whereby the services of petitioner as D.M. were ordered to be taken over and he was posted in Government Senior Secondary School, Telmehra in the pay scale of Rs.10300-34800, Grade Pay of Rs.3200/- It was, however, clarified that the petitioner would not be entitled to back wages in view of judgment in SLP(C) No.22583 of 1996 decided on 28.10.1996. The petitioner accepted the appointment, but filed the Original Application No.4761 of 2016 before the erstwhile, H.P. State Administrative Tribunal for the reliefs as noticed above. After abolition of the State Administrative Tribunal the matter has been registered, as the one at hand, on the files of this Court. 9. The contention of the petitioner is that the back wages have been wrongly denied to him as his incarceration was only on account of a false case, in which he was finally acquitted by this Court. After abolition of the State Administrative Tribunal the matter has been registered, as the one at hand, on the files of this Court. 9. The contention of the petitioner is that the back wages have been wrongly denied to him as his incarceration was only on account of a false case, in which he was finally acquitted by this Court. But for his incarceration, his services would have been taken over along with other staff of the school as is also reflected from the communication dated 10.05.2006. 10. On the other hand, the respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner by justifying its decision to deny back wages to the petitioner on the basis of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore vs. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) and another, SLP(C) No.22538 of 1996 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 12. In the above noted factual background, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to back wages from the date on which his services have been taken over till the date of offer of actual appointment to him? 13. On 25.03.2025, this Court passed the following order: “On 21.10.2024, following order was passed by this Court:- “ Heard for some time. The following points arise for determination:- 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for notional fixation of pay for intervening period from 10.05.2006 till actual taking over on 03.07.2014, or not? 2. Whether the acquittal in criminal case and consequential taking over of service on 03.07.2014 (Annexure A-8), from the date the service of others were taken over w.e.f. 10.05.2006, the petitioner is entitled for any backwages or not? 3. Whether the petitioner, being an employee of 95% Aided School, who was placed under suspension on 10.01.1996, due to alleged involvement in criminal case, in which he was acquitted, is entitled to pay and allowances-service benefits? 2. In background of above points of determination, Learned State Counsel prays for time to place on record Rules/norms, governing service conditions i.e. admissibility to pay and allowances of any employee while being in 95% Aided, who was placed under suspension, resulting in acquittal and reinstatement. 3. Let rules/norms be placed on record within two weeks. 2. In background of above points of determination, Learned State Counsel prays for time to place on record Rules/norms, governing service conditions i.e. admissibility to pay and allowances of any employee while being in 95% Aided, who was placed under suspension, resulting in acquittal and reinstatement. 3. Let rules/norms be placed on record within two weeks. List thereafter.” The respondents did not comply with the order and thereafter the matter was heard in part on 22.03.2025 and the respondents were directed to produce the service book of the petitioner. Today, the service book of the petitioner has been produced but from its perusal also it is not clear as to from which date the appointment of the petitioner is being considered by the respondents. Service book of the petitioner in original returned. Let respondent No.2 file an affidavit clarifying the issues as raised by this Court vide order dated 21.10.2024 and to clearly specify as to from which date the appointment of petitioner is being considered by the respondents. The affidavit be filed on or before the next date.” 14. In compliance, the respondents filed an affidavit and accordingly, the following order was passed on 08.04.2025. “In compliance to order dated 25.3.2025, an affidavit has been filed. Para-5 of the affidavit reads as under:- “That is submitted that as per direction received from the Government vide letter dated 20.5.2014, the services of the petitioner have been taken over from the date when the services of other staff were taken over vide office order dated 3.7.2014 issued by the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Una, District Una. The services of other staff has been taken over by the department in the year 2006. It is further submitted that after taking over all the 95% aided employees and 95% aided schools, the Government has repealed the 95% Grant-in-aid Rules, 1997 vide notification No. Shiksha-II Kha (1)-10/96-II dated 2.11.2015. Copy of notification dated 2.11.2025, copy of Grant-in-aid Rules dated 29.10.1998 and copy of office order dated 3.7.2014 is annexed herewith as Annexure R-II, R-III and R-IV respectively. Thus, it has been clarified that the services of the petitioner were taken over by the respondent-State w.e.f. the year 2006, when the services of other similarly situated were taken over.” 15. The services of the staff of the Public High School, Charuru except the petitioner were taken over w.e.f. 10.05.2006. Thus, it has been clarified that the services of the petitioner were taken over by the respondent-State w.e.f. the year 2006, when the services of other similarly situated were taken over.” 15. The services of the staff of the Public High School, Charuru except the petitioner were taken over w.e.f. 10.05.2006. Thus, in view of the clear stand of the respondents, the services of the petitioner shall also be considered to be taken over w.e.f. same date i.e. 10.05.2006. The letter of appointment was issued to the petitioner on 03.07.2014 and on that basis the petitioner joined at Government Senior Secondary School, Telmehra. 16. The respondents have denied the benefit of back wages to the petitioner for the sole reason that in the case of Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court had denied the back wages in an identical fact situation. 17. A similar question came before a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.699 of 2011 titled Manjit Singh Vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others. Hon’ble Division Bench vide judgment dated 31.08.2023 has rejected the plea of the respondents that the back wages were not admissible in a fact situation like the one in hand in light of the judgment in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore (supra). The Hon’ble Division Bench has placed reliance on judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Brahma Chandra Gupta vs. Union of India, (1984) 2 SCC 433 and State of Punjab and others vs. Shambhu Nath Singla and others, (1996) 1 SCC 296 . It has been held that in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore (supra) the judgment in Brahma Chandra Gupta, which was passed by a Larger Bench of three Judges, was not noticed. 18. In light of the aforesaid judgment dated 31.08.2023 passed in LPA No.699 of 2011 which is binding on this Court, the contention raised by the respondents is rejected. 19. In result, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant back wages to the petitioner at par with other similarly situated employees of the erstwhile Public High School, Chruru, for the period 10.05.2006 to the date of his joining as DM at Government Senior Secondary School Telmehra. 20. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.