BALDEV SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 961 · Decided: 28-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

BALDEV SINGH 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 28, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Pay and pension-Grant of-Termination of employee on conviction 
and subsequent acquittal-Effect of, for counting service for grant of pay and C 
pension-Plea that custody period to be taken as if employee was on duty-
Held: Mere acquittal does not automatically entitle the employee to get salary 
for the custody period since employee was not in actual service-Also employee · 
not entitled to pension since on not including the custody period for having 
not rendered service, sen1ice rendered was less than 15 years. 
The appellant, enrolled in the Indian Army was dismissed from 
services by reason of conviction under the Penal Code, 1860. However, 
High Court acquitted him. The appellant then filed writ petition praying 
D 
for grant of arrears of pay from the date of his arrest to the date of his 
discharge from service and also pension. He alleged that after the acquittal E 
order he was released from the jail and in terms thereof was reinstated 
in service; and that he continued in service till he was discharged. The 
respondent-Union of India contended that the direction for reinstatement 
in service was passed on the ground of acquittal but despite repeated 
request and reminders the appellant did not rejoin the duties, as such his F 
claim for arrears of pay was not sustainable. The High Court held that 
the appellant was entitled to salary for the period for which he actually 
rendered service and not for the period he did not work when he was in 
custody facing trial and as such the rendered service being less than the 
minimum required he was not entitled to pension. Hence, the present 
appeal. 
G 
Appellant contended that the certificate issued clearly showed his 
period of service as I 5 years and I 8 days and as such was entitled to 
pension; that the natural consequence of acquittal order was that the 
961 
H 
962 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A period in custody was to be treated as if he was on duty and as such the 
dismissal order was non-est; and that the authorities were awaiting 
Government sanction to grant the consequential relief. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The facts clearly indicate that the appellant was not in 
actual service for the period he was in custody. Merely because there has 
been an acquittal it does not automatically entitle him to get salary for 
the concerned period. This is more so, on the logic of no work no pay. 
( 
The appellant was terminated from service because of conviction. Effect 
C of the same does not get diluted because of subsequent acquittal for the 
purpose of counting service. [965-BJ 
D 
Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat 
Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) and Anr., (1996] 11 SC 603 and 
Union of India and Ors. v. Jaipa/Singh, (2004[ l SCC 121, relied on. 
1.2. The letter of the Officiating Chief Record Officer merely stated 
that the claims and dues admissible would be settled only after the 
Government sanction for regularization is received. Nowhere there was 
admission of the entitlement of the appellant. In any event, the appellant 
E having not rendered service, the custody period cannot be included for 
counting service and as such the appellant has not rendered the requisite 
period of service of 15 years in order to be entitled to pension. Therefore, 
the order of High Court does not suffer from any infirmity. (965-E, F, GJ 
F 
G 
l 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3892of1999. 
From the Judgment and Order ?ated 16.7.98 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court in C.W.P. No. 19083 of 1997. 
'Bhim Sen Sehgal and Avijit Bhattacharjee for the Appellant. 
Ms. Anil Katiyar and Arvind Kumar Sharma for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Appellant calls in question legality of the 
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High 
H Court dismissing the writ petition filed by him under Article 226 of the 
BALDEV SINGH v. U.0.1 [PASA Y AT, J.] 
963 
Constitution.of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') praying for grant of A 
arrears of pay and pension. 
The factual background is as follows: 
The appellant was enrolled in the Indian Army on September 13, 1978. 
On March 30, 1987 he was arrested in a criminal case for offence punishable B 
under Sections 302/34 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.