IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No. 15052 of 2008 Date of decision : 20.06.2025. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Akshay Negi ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Chetna Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Addl. A.G. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (oral): The instant petition has been filed for the following substantive relief:- “(ia) That accordingly the respondents department may kindly be directed to refix the pay allowance, increments of the petitioner and other service benefits including seniority, promotion and pay the arrear in favour of the petitioner along with 12% interest. (ib) That accordingly the respondent department may kindly be directed to modify the order dated 25.5.2024 to the extend that the petitioner may be granted full salary and allowances w.e.f. 1.5.2007 to 5.2.2009 along with 12% interest. ” 2. The petitioner was appointed as Veterinary Pharmacist on contract basis on 23.11.2006. The services of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- the petitioner were terminated w.e.f. 30.4.2007 on the ground that a criminal case stood registered against him on 23.11.2006 under Sections, 279, 147, 149, 323, 325 and 506 of IPC. 3. The petitioner approached the State Administrative Tribunal by way of original application, which now stands transferred to the files of this Court. 4. The criminal case on the basis of which, the petitioner was terminated was withdrawn by the prosecution on 27.1.2009 under Section 321 of Cr.P.C., as a consequence of which, the petitioner was acquitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur vie order dated 27.1.2009. Thereafter, the respondents again appointed the petitioner as Veterinary Pharmacist on contract basis vide order dated 29.1.2009. In response, the petitioner joined as Veterinary Pharmacist at Veterinary Dispensary, Rarang, District Kinnaur, H.P. on 6.2.2009. 5. Later, the Director, Animal Husbandry passed order dated 24.5.2024 and thereby ordered to reinstatement the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.5.2007 to 5.2.2009 on notional basis for the purpose of seniority and promotion. However, he was not held entitled to back wages for the reasons that he had not worked in the department during the period 1.5.2007 to 5.2.2009. -3- 6. The petitioner has amended the petition accordingly and reliefs (ia) and (ib), as noticed above, have been added. In light of the order dated 24.5.2024, passed by the Director, Animal Husbandry, as noticed above, only the relief (ib) survives for consideration. The issue is whether the petitioner is entitled for the wages for a period of 1.5.2007 to 2.5.2009? 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court on 31.8.2023 in LPA No. 699 of 2011, titled as Manjeet Singh vs. State of H.P. & others to assert that the case of the petitioner for the purpose of relief (ib) will be squarely covered. 8. Having perused the aforesaid judgment, I find substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the said case, petitioner Manjeet Singh was convicted for offences under Sections 302, 392 and 120B of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. He was dismissed from service on 26.11.1997 on the basis of conviction. Manjeet Singh was acquitted in appeal by the High Court on 14.5.1999. He was reinstated into services w.e.f. 4.5.2000. He was denied salary for the period between 26.11.1997 to 4.5.2000. In the writ petition filed by Manjeet Singh, learned Single Judge of this Court had not granted him the relief, however, by way of -4- aforesaid judgment in LPA No. 699 of 2011, the Hon’ble Division Bench reversed the judgment of learned Single Judge and held Manjeet Singh entitled to full salary and allowances for the period between 26.11.1997 to 4.5.2000. 9. I have found that the facts of the instant case are identical to the facts of aforesaid case, although, the learned Additional Advocate General has tried to distinguish both the cases. He would contend that in the instant case, the petitioner was a contractual employee and it was a condition of the contract that before renewal his antecedents were required to be checked. Since FIR had been registered against the petitioner, his antecedents could not be verified, which resulted in the termination of the services of the petitioner. I do not find reasons to concur with the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General for the reasons that as a matter of principle, there cannot be any distinction between both the cases. In Manjeet Singh, the dismissal of service was on account of the service rules and in the instant case, the terms of contract are also the service rule applicable in the case of the petitioner. 10. The Hon’ble Division Bench in Manjeet Singh (supra) has held as under:- -5- “17. No doubt, in the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Jaipal Singh5 and in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore ( 3 Supra) cited by the Additional Advocate General, back wages were denied, but from the said decisions, it is clear that the earlier judgments in Brahma Chandra Gupta’s case ( 1 supra) and Shambhu Nath Singla and Others( 2 supra), were not noticed. 18. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed following the decisions in Brahma Chandra Gupta’s case (1 supra) and Shambhu Nath Singla and Others( 2 supra) and Raj Narain ( 4 Supra); the order of the learned Single Judge in so far as he denied full salary and allowances to the petitioner for the period 26.11.1997 to 04.05.2000, is set aside; and it is held that the appellant is entitled to full salary and allowances for the said period as well, which shall be paid to him within three months. If not, the appellant shall be paid interest @ 9% per annum”. 11. In result, the petition is allowed in terms of the judgment dated 31.8.2023, passed in LPA No. 699 of 2011, titled as Manjeet Singh vs. State of H.P. & others. The reasons assigned therein shall apply mutatis-mutandis to the facts of the instant case. The petitioner is held entitled to full salary and allowances for the period w.e.f. 1.5.2007 to 5.2.2009, which shall be paid to him within a period of three months, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum. -6- 12. The petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 20th June, 2025 (kck)