Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal by an appellant who sought arrears of pay and pension after being acquitted of criminal charges. The appellant was enrolled in the Indian Army on September 13, 1978, and was arrested on March 30, 1987, for offenses under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was convicted but later acquitted by the High Court on March 26, 1992. Following his release from jail on April 4, 1992, he claimed to have reported back to duty but was discharged from service on September 30, 1993. The respondents contested his claims, asserting that he had been dismissed from service effective July 18, 1990, due to his conviction and had failed to report for duty despite multiple reminders. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the appellant had not worked during the relevant period and was not entitled to salary or pension. The appellant argued that his acquittal should negate the dismissal and that he had completed over 15 years of service. The respondents maintained that the acquittal did not entitle him to salary for the period he was absent from duty. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the appellant's absence during the trial period and the dismissal due to conviction were valid grounds for denying his claims. The court noted that the appellant had not completed the requisite service period for pension eligibility and that the delay in filing the writ petition could bar his claims. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and costs were made easy.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Entitlement to Salary - Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 - The appellant's claim for salary and pension was dismissed as he did not report for duty despite acquittal, and was not entitled to salary for the period he did not work. The court held that acquittal does not automatically entitle him to salary for the period of absence (Paras 1-2). B) Service Law - Dismissal and Reinstatement - Regulation for the Army, 1987 - The appellant's dismissal due to conviction was upheld, and the acquittal did not negate the dismissal's effect for service counting. The court reiterated that the appellant had not completed the requisite service period for pension eligibility (Paras 2-3). C) Limitation - Delay in Filing - The writ petition was filed significantly after the discharge date, raising issues of limitation. The court noted that the delay could bar the claim for payment of arrears (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to arrears of pay and pension despite being absent from duty during the relevant period.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's ruling that the appellant was not entitled to arrears of pay and pension due to his absence from duty during the relevant period and the effect of his dismissal due to conviction.
Law Points
- Article 226 of the Constitution
- Indian Penal Code
- 1860
- Regulation for the Army
- 1987
- acquittal effect
- no work no pay
- limitation period
