LexJAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. AND ORS. versus NATHU RAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,,
[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1083
JAIPURVIDYUTVITRAN NIGAM LTD. AND ORS.
~
A
v.
NATHU RAM
(Civil-Appeal No. 7721 of 2009)
NOVEMBER 23, 2009
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]
B-
Service Law:
Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees Service
Regulations, 1964 - Regulation 41 - Employee allegedly c
caught accepting bribe an<;J suspended from service --Criminal
case - Conviction by trial court - In view thereof, termination
of employee - Acquittal by High Court - Re-instatement of
employee by vittue of the acquittal - Employee granted full pay
and allowances from date of suspension to date of termination
and again from date of acquittal to date of re-instatement -
D
./
Entitlement of employee-respondent to receive pay and
allowances for period between date of termination and date of
acquittal - Held: Entitled, in view of circular dated 3rd
September, 1975 (adopted by appellant-employer) read with
Regulation 41.
E
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136 - New plea - Plea
raised for first time in S~preme Court - Cannot be entertained.
Appellant-Corporation had adopted the Rules,
Regulations and directions issued by its predecessor, the
erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board.
F
Respondent, an employee of Appellant-Corporation,
was allegedly caught accepting br.ibe by the Anti-
Corruption Bureau and suspended from service on 30th
November, 1979. In 1982, he was convicted by the Special
Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases and sentenced to one year G
rigorous imprisonment. Respondent filed appeal before
l
High Court. Meanwhile, in view of the conviction, appellant
terminated the service of respondent by order dated 28th
1083
H
1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
December, 1982.
Subsequently by order dated 15th December, 1997,
the High Court acquitted the respondent and by virtue of
the acquittal order, the appellant, by order dated 2nd June,
1998, reinstated respondent in service w.e.f. 15th
B December, 1997 and granted him full pay and allowances
for the period of suspension i.e. from 30th November, 1979
to 28th December, 1982 and from 15th December, 1997 till
his joining of duty. Respondent joined duty on 3rd June,
1998 and retired on 31st May, 2003.
C
After retirement, respondent filed writ petition inter a/ia
claiming that the period from 29th December, 1982 to 14th
December, 1997 be also treated as period spent on duty
for all purposes with full pay and allowances.
The High Court placed reliance upon a circular dated
D 3rd September, 1975 issued by the appellant's
predecessor (the erstwhile 17<.ajasthan State Electricity
Board), and directed the appellant to pay backwages from
29th December, 1982 to 14th December, 1997 in form of
salaries and allowances to the extent of what would have
E
been payable to the respcmdent had he remained under
suspension from the date of termination to the date of
acquittal.
In appeal to this Court, it was contended (1) that the
High Court could not have entertained the writ petition
F
filed by respondent since he filed the same after long delay
without any explanation and (2) that the respondent was
not entitled to any remuneration for the period 29th
December, 1982 to 14th December, 1997.
Dismissing the appeal, th~ Co~~( ·
•
,.i.
•('- J
G
HELD: 1. The question of delay in filing the writ petition
H
was raised for the first time in the Special;Leave Petition
before this Court, hence, it cannot be entertained at this
stage. [Para 8) [1090-A]
2.1. The Circular dated 3rd September, 1975
j
JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGA.M LTD. AND ORS. v. 1085
NATHU RAM
specifically provides that the period between the date of A
dismissal and the date on which the employee resumed
his duty should be dealt with under Regulation 41(2) of the
Employees Services Regulations, 1964. At the\ same time,
Regulation 41 also clearly says that when an employee
who has been dismissed and thereafter reinstated, the
8
authority competent to make the order of reinstatement
shall consider the pay and allowances to be paid to the
employee for the period of his absence from duty. This
Circular along with Regulation 41, then~fore, makes it clear
that the authority is bound to take into c-onsideration
regarding pay and allowances to be paid to the empioyee C
for the period of his absence from duty. The Circular also
clearly says that in doing so, the employee should be
deemed to be entitled to full pay and allowaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.