2005 (10) TMI 600 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
- Claim for arrears of pay and pension following acquittal in a criminal case.
- Dispute over reinstatement and entitlement to salary and pension.
- Delay in filing the writ petition and potential limitation on the suit for arrears of salary.
- Effect of acquittal on period of custody and entitlement to salary.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Legality of the Judgment
The appellant challenged the legality of the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that dismissed the writ petition seeking arrears of pay and pension following an acquittal in a criminal case. The High Court held that the appellant was not entitled to salary for the period he was in custody, despite the subsequent acquittal. The court emphasized the principle of "no work no pay" and dismissed the writ petition due to the appellant's failure to render service during the relevant period.

Issue 2: Claim for Arrears of Pay and Pension
The appellant, a former Indian Army personnel, claimed arrears of pay and pension for the period from his arrest in 1987 to his discharge in 1993 following an acquittal. However, the respondents contested the claim, asserting that the appellant was dismissed from service in 1990 due to the criminal conviction. The appellant's reinstatement was delayed, and he was eventually discharged in 1993 for failing to rejoin duty despite multiple reminders.

Issue 3: Delay in Filing Writ Petition and Limitation
The High Court highlighted the considerable delay between the date of discharge in 1993 and the filing of the writ petition in 1997. The court suggested that the suit for arrears of salary might be barred by limitation due to the delay in seeking legal recourse. This delay was a significant factor in the dismissal of the appellant's petition.

Issue 4: Effect of Acquittal on Entitlement to Salary
The appellant argued that his period of custody following the arrest should be considered as duty due to his subsequent acquittal. However, the court held that the effect of the conviction leading to dismissal was not nullified by the acquittal. The appellant's failure to render service during the relevant period impacted his entitlement to salary and pension, as per previous legal precedents cited in the judgment.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the appellant's failure to render service during the period in question affected his entitlement to arrears of pay and pension. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the legality of the judgment and highlighting the principle of "no work no pay" in determining the appellant's claims.