1 2025:CGHC:52880-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 771 of 2025 Rajendra Prasad Pandey (Deleted) Through Legal Representative Devendra Kumar Pandey S/o Late Rajendra Prasad Pandey, Aged About 42 Years, R/o - Ayodhyay Dham Colony, Ram Nagar, Ward No. 1, District - Kawardha (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General of Police Police Head Quarter, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Additional Director General of Police Administration Police Head Quarter, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent of Police District Kabirdham (C.G.) 5 - Prakash Kumar Pandey S/o Late Shri Rajendra Prasad Pandey Aged About 43 Years R/o Kailash Nagar Kawardha (C.G.) 6 - Ravindra Kumar Pandey S/o Late Shri Rajendra Prasad Pandey Aged About 42 Years R/o Hospital Colony, Dharsiva, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Adv. General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 30 . 10 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Dy. Advocate General, ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 appearing for the respondents/ State on I.A. No. 01 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 270 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 4. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant, who was one of the legal representative of the sole writ petitioner in the writ petition has challenged the impugned order dated 25.11.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1637 of 2016 ( Deleted (Rajendra Prasad Pandey) through Legal Representatives Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which the said writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 5. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the sole writ petitioner- Rajendra Prasad Pandey, who was performing his duties as Sub Inspector in the Respondent Department, was terminated on 01.05.2007, owing to his conviction vide judgment dated 28.02.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kabirdham (Kawardha) in Sessions Trial No.119/2003 with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 3 304 Part-II/149, 330/149, 348/149, 201 and 218 of IPC. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of his conviction, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before this Court, registered as Criminal Appeal No.237 of 2005 and before his acquittal vide judgment dated 01.08.2013, he has attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2013. It appears that upon his acquittal in relation to the alleged crime, he submitted a representation on 26.08.2013 before the concerned respondent authorities and prays for his salary for the period commencing with effect from 01.05.2007, i.e. the date of his termination, to 31.05.2013, i.e., the date of his superannuation. The alleged claim has been denied by the concerned respondent authorities vide order dated 27.11.2013 (Annexure P-2) and 19.10.2015 (Annexure P-5) with an observation that since he had not worked during the said period, therefore, he is not entitled for the same while applying the principle of “No work No pay”. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the sole writ petitioner- Rajendra Prasad Pandey has filed WPS No. 1637 of 2016 questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 27.11.2013 (Annexure P- 2) and 19.10.2015 (Annexure P-5), whereby the respondents No.2 & 3 respectively, have rejected the representation as submitted by the petitioner claiming payment of salary from the date of his termination i.e., 01.05.2007 to the date of his superannuation i.e.,31.05.2013 on the basis of “No work No pay”. During the pendency of said writ petition, the sole writ petitioner 4 Rajendra Prasad Pandey died and vide order dated 08.09.2023 his name was deleted and the said writ petition has been contented by his three legal representatives and ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 25.11.2024. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the impugned order dated 25.11.2024 has been passed by the learned Single Judge by ignoring the entitlement of the petitioner under the provision of Clause 241 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations. He submitted that according to Clause 241 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations, once an employee has been acquitted by the Criminal Court, as a matter of right, he should be reinstated in service and he may not be punished departmentally when the offence for which he was tried constituted the sole ground of punishment. He further submitted that while passing the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that, the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India and other Vs. Jaipal Singh, reported in (2004) 1 SCC 121 are on different footing than the facts of the present case. He also submitted that in the present matter, the police department alleged the allegation against the petitioner and the same was not established in the appeal stage. The police department terminated the services of the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal and there is the barrier created by the police department itself against the petitioner, therefore the 5 petitioner is not responsible for the fault/wrong committed by the police department. He contended that while passing the impugned order, the learned single Judge had failed to appreciate the provision of sub rule 2 of rule 54 of the fundamental rules of the State Government, according to which the petitioner was entitled for full back wages. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in the matter of Mahesh Chandra Malakar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (WPS No. 4523 of 2015) decided on 15.10.2024. He further contended that in the identical situation, when the learned Single Judge denied for monetary benefit for the previous period, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WA No. 59 of 2022 (Sangram Singh Verma Vs. State of C.G. & Others) had allowed the writ appeal. He lastly submits that once the issue regarding entitlement of monetary benefit after reinstatement has been decided by another coordinate bench of this Hon'ble High Court and also decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court in the identical matter, it is required to follow the same for maintaining the judicial discipline. In view of above, the instant writ appeal is deserved to be allowed. He also placed reliance on the judgment dated 31.07.2024 passed by the learned Judge Single of this Court in WP No. 3899 of 2006 (Abdul Rahman Amhed Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed holding that the petitioner would be entitled for all consequential benefits including 6 his seniority which was served due to such termination though was abridged by the subsequent order of the SAT. The petitioner shall also be entitled for fixation of salary as also arrears of salary in between the period from 1991 to 1999 for which he was deprived. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents/State opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the learned Single Judge, after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly dismissed the writ petition, in which no interference is called for. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 10. From perusal of the record it transpires that the although, the sole petitioner Rajendra Prasad Pandey was acquitted with regard to the alleged offence vide judgment dated 01.08.2013 passed by this Court in Cr. A. No.237 of 2005, but, he has not worked for the said period as he retired on 31.05.2013 before his acquittal and as such, his alleged claim for his salary for the period commencing with effect from 01.05.2007, i.e. the date of his termination, to 31.05.2013, i.e., the date of his superannuation has been rejected by the respondent department while applying the principle of “No work No Pay”. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has has categorically observed that the aforesaid observation of the respondent department is 7 fortified by the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaipal Singh (supra) and held that the concerned respondent authorities have, therefore, not committed any illegality in rejecting the petitioner’s claim, so as to call for any interference in this petition. 11. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant in the matter of Sangram Singh Verma (supra) is distinguishable on the facts of the present case. In the said case the appellant was compelled not to attend his duties without any violation or without any fault on his part and once the order of termination has been held illegal and contrary to the Rules, the appellant therein was held entitled for monetary benefits for the previous period. But, in the instant case, the sole writ petitioner was not compelled to attend his duties, however, he was terminated from his service because of criminal case pending against him and before his acquittal, he has already been retired from his service. Moreover, the reliance placed by learned counsel for the appellant in the matter of Abdul Rahman Amhed (supra) is also distinguishable from facts and circumstances of the present case as in the instant case no departmental enquiry has been held. It further transpires from the record that the petitioner was terminated from his services on 01.05.2007, owing to his conviction vide judgment dated 28.02.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kabirdham (Kawardha) in Sessions Trial No.119/2003 with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 8 304 Part-II/149, 330/149, 348/149, 201 and 218 of IPC. Although, the petitioner was acquitted with regard to the alleged offence vide judgment dated 01.08.2013 passed by this Court in Cr. A. No.237 of 2005, but, it undisputed fact that since the petitioner was out of his work, he has not worked for the said period as he retired on 31.05.2013 before his acquittal. 12. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra