SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Phool Mati @ Phool Wati vs State Of Haryana And Others on 5 February, 2020

CWP-19659-2018 – 1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CWP-19659-2018
Date of decision: 05.02.2020

Phool Mati @ Phool Wati …Petitioner(s)
V/s.

State of Haryana and others …Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI.

Present: Mr. R.S.Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
***

RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral).

By this petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of order

dated 20.12.2017 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No. 3 by which

service of the petitioner has been reinstated without arrears and with duty of

the Chowkidar.

The brief facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as

safai karmachari on part time basis on 01.12.1990 and her services were

regularized on 25.08.2000 in Government High School Katlupur Tehsil

Kharkhoda, District Sonipat. On 04.09.2010, respondent No. 4 i.e.

Headmaster had given the letter to the petitioner to join the duty as sweeper

cum chowkidar in the same school. Annexure P-1 is the copy of letter dated

04.09.2010. The petitioner submitted the reply of letter dated 04.09.2010

that the lady cannot be appointed as chowkidar in night in the school.

Thereafter respondent No.4 issued show cause notice to the petitioner. On

07.12.2010, the petitioner was suspended from the service. However vide

order dated 05.01.2011 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner was reinstated.

1 of 6
23-02-2020 22:03:36 :::
CWP-19659-2018 – 2-

Finally on 27.06.2011, the services of the petitioner were dismissed vide

order dated 27.06.2011 (Annexure P-4) after the report of the Inquiry

Officer. The petitioner filed CWP-4037-2015 challenging the order dated

27.06.2011. Vide office order dated 20.12.2017 (Annexure P-7) in

compliance of direction given by this Court in CWP-4037-2015 on

02.05.2017, the appeal filed by the petitioner before District Education

Officer, Sonipat was considered and it was held that termination of the

appellant/petitioner was not as per the departmental rules as the main cause

of termination was that the petitioner had not given night duty as chowkidar.

The appeal was allowed and she was reinstated and condition of her

appointment letter dated 25.08.2000 remained same. The break period was

treated only for notional benefits and no salary/arrear was given to her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to letter dated

01.07.2014 (Annexure P-9) whereby Director Secondary Education Haryana

issued direction to all the District Education Officers of the State that no

female class-IV employee be given duty as chowkidar in night time.

Keeping in view this the appeal of the petitioner was allowed vide order

20.12.2017 (Annexure P-7).

After notice of motion, written statement on behalf of

respondents No. 1 to 4 has been filed. Learned counsel for the State, while

referring to written statement has argued that the petitioner is not entitled

for arrears of salary on the principle of No work No Pay. Further the

services of the petitioner were terminated on 27.06.2011 as an FIR No. 178

dated 08.06.2011 under Section 498A and 304B IPC was registered against

her and she was in judicial custody during trial. On 25.09.2013 she was

2 of 6
23-02-2020 22:03:37 :::
CWP-19659-2018 – 3-

acquitted by the trial Court and it is after acquittal, she filed CWP-4037-

2015 against the order dated 27.06.2011 whereby her services were

dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The services of the petitioner had not been terminated on

account of registration of FIR. The appeal against the termination order

dated 27.06.2011 was rightly accepted in view of instructions/letter dated

01.07.2014 (Annexure P-9). With respect to FIR, it was her private dispute

vand after acquittal from the criminal case, she had a right to be reinstated

alongwith all consequential benefits as per Rule 7.5 of Punjab Civil Service

Rules. Hence, in the present case, the trial cannot be made basis for

denying the arrears of salary to her. Further the Department had not

initiated any disciplinary proceedings and the Department had terminated

the services of the petitioner on account of registration of FIR.

A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hukam Singh

V/s. State of Haryana and another 2001(2) S.C.T. 696 (Annexure P-10)

was considering a case of Lecturer who had been convicted on 01.02.1986

for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 read with

Section 34 IPC. His services were terminated and his appeal before the

Supreme Court was allowed and he was acquitted. After acquittal, he was

reinstated on 01.07.1998. His suspension period from 01.02.1986 to

01.05.1986 and dismissal period from 02.05.1986 to 18.02.1998 were not

treated as duty period and backwages were also denied. The Division

Bench allowed his writ petition by referring to Rule 7.5 of the Punjab Civil

Services Rules as applicable to Haryana State and held that he is entitled for

3 of 6
23-02-2020 22:03:37 :::
CWP-19659-2018 – 4-

full salary and allowances for the period of suspension and dismissal. In

para 8, the Division Bench observed as under:-

“8. In our this view, we are supported by the judgment of this
Court in the case of Maha Singh v. State of Haryana and
another, 1993(8) Services Law Reporter 188 : 1994 (1) SCT
154 (PH). Same view was expressed by this Court in the
case of Lehna Singh v. The State of Haryana and others,
1993 (3) Recent Services Judgments 119 : 1994 (1) SCT 173
(PH). Keeping in view the aforesaid, we have no hesitation
in holding that the impugned order cannot be sustained. In
terms of Rule 7.5 of the Rules, on petitioner’s being acquitted,
he would be entitled to full salary and allowances for the period
of suspension and dismissal. The impugned order Annexure P-
7 is accordingly quashed. The petitioner can thereafter be
considered for any further promotion that may be due in
accordance with the rules. No order as to costs.”

The aforesaid judgment was thereafter followed by this Court

in CWP-9139-2015 titled Dr. Anil Kumar Ranga V/s. State of Haryana

2016(2) S.C.T. 420 and the relevant portion is as under:-

“6.Even a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hukam
Singh v. State of Haryana and another, 2001(2) SCT 696,
while considering the scope of Rule 7.5 of the Punjab Civil
Service Rules had held as under:-

“8. In our this view, we are supported by the judgment of this
Court in the case of Maha Singh v. State of Haryana and
another, 1993 (8) Service Law Reporter 188: 1994 (1) SCT
154 (PH). Same view was expressed by this Court in the case
of Lehna Singh v. The State of Haryana and others, 1993 (3)
Recent Services Judgments 119: 1994(1) SCT 173 (PH).

Keeping in view the aforesaid, we have no hesitation in
holding that the impugned order cannot be sustained. In terms
of Rule 7.5 of the Rules, on petitioner’s being acquitted, he
would be entitled to full salary and allowances for the period

4 of 6
23-02-2020 22:03:37 :::
CWP-19659-2018 – 5-

of suspension and dismissal. The impugned order Annexure P-
7 is accordingly quashed. The petitioner can thereafter be
considered for any further promotion that may be due in
accordance with the rules. No order as to costs.”

7. Such view has thereafter been noticed and followed by the
Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 1660 of 2011 titled as
‘Ishwar Singh vs. State of Haryana and others’ decided on
17.11.2011.

8. In the case of “Surjit Singh vs. State of Haryana and
another” titled ‘CWP No. 1326 of 2013’ wherein the
petitioner who was serving on the post of Patwari under the
Revenue Department, State of Haryana was placed under
suspension on account of involvement in a criminal case under
the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was reinstated back in
service in consequence of the judgment of acquittal in the
criminal case. The petitioner, however was held not entitled to
the salary for the period he remained out of service. A
Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition by
observing that having been absolved of such allegations and
charges, he would be vested with the right to full pay and
salary for the period he remained out of service in the light of
relevant statutory provisions i.e Rules 7.3 and 7.5 of the Punjab
Civil Service Rules, Volume I as applicable to the State of
Haryana. Hence the petitioner was held entitled to full pay and
allowances for the period that he had remained out of service
on account of his conviction.

The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid

judgments. Hence, writ petition is allowed. Order dated 20.12.2017

(Annexure P-7) is modified to the extent that the benefits of arrears/salary

be given to the petitioner w.e.f. 27.06.2011 till the date of her reinstatement

and she would perform duty as sweeper (Class-IV) as per the letter dated

01.07.2014 (Annexure P-9). The respondents are directed to pay her arrears

5 of 6
23-02-2020 22:03:37 :::
CWP-19659-2018 – 6-

and pass appropriate order within a period of three months from the date of

receipt of certified copy of this order.

(RITU BAHRI)
JUDGE
05.02.2020
Divyanshi

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No

6 of 6
23-02-2020 22:03:37 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation