Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Yogesh Rai v. S.P. G.R.P. Gorakhpur & Another - WRIT - A No. 38575 of 2001 [2006] RD-AH 1619 (20 January 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


       Court No.30

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38575 of 2001

Yogesh Rai Vs. Senior Superintendent of Police, GRP,

Gorakhpur and another


Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.

Heard Shri R.P. Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

On the joint request of learned counsel for the parties this case is being decided at the admission stage in terms of the Rules of this Court. This petition is disposed off under Chapter XXII Rule 2 of the Rules of the Court without inviting any counter affidavit but after hearing the learned standing counsel.

The facts of the case in short are that the petitioner was initially appointed as constable in police department in the year 1968 and later on promoted to the post of head constable in the year 1983. Vide order dated 28.3.1988 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur-respondent no.2 the petitioner was placed under suspension on the charges that he was allegedly involved in case crime no.41 of 1988 under Sections 147/148/149/323/307/504/506 I.P.C. the petitioner filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.16208 of 1988 before this Court in which an interim order dated 25.8.1988 was passed staying the suspension order dated 28.3.1988. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 2.11.1988 passed by respondent no.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, with immediate effect. After reinstatement of the petitioner, the criminal matter regarding case crime no.41 of 1988 was committed to the Court of Sessions as Sessions Trial No.382 of 1999 which was decided by the Court concerned vide its order dated 17.11.2000 acquitting the petitioner from the aforesaid criminal matter on the ground that no charges leveled against him were found to be established. While the petitioner was reinstated in service pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court it was made clear by the authorities concerned that separate orders would be passed regarding payment of salary of the petitioner of his suspension period but no orders were passed thereafter, resulting in filing of the present Writ Petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the suspension order itself has been stayed there did not exist any suspension order and, more so, he was reinstated thereafter and thus he would be considered to be treated on duty during the suspension period and was entitled to be paid difference of the amount of salary and the subsistence allowance so paid. In support of his arguments he has relied upon the decision in the case of Hans Raj Vs. Managing Director reported in 2000 (4) ESC-24 - 77 (Alld.) wherein it has been held that on acquittal in criminal case and the suspension of the petitioner having been revoked and he was allowed to join his service then the whole period of suspension of the petitioner shall be treated as on duty.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I find that since no suspension order dated 28.3.1988 exists having been stayed by this Court vide interim order dated 25.8.1988 and as the petitioner was reinstated and also finally acquitted in the criminal case and no other disciplinary proceedings as of today are pending against him, the petitioner would be treated to be in service with continuity, and he is entitled for full salary for the entire period of suspension.

In view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, settled law and observations made hereinabove, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents shall release the full salary to the petitioner of the period of suspension after deducting the amount paid towards subsistence allowance. No order as to costs.

January 20, 2006



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.