Supreme Court rules in favor of appellant for pension benefits, excludes back wages.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's orders, and ruled that the appellant was entitled to pension benefits, but not back wages. The Court emphasized the need for a just and equitable approach, considering the appellant's circumstances and the prolonged litigation.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay and laches in challenging the termination order.
2. Entitlement to monetary and service benefits post-acquittal.

Summary:

1. Delay and Laches in Challenging the Termination Order:
The appellant's husband, an Assistant in the Bihar School Examination Board, was terminated following his conviction u/s 420, 467, 471, 458, and 120B of the IPC. The appellant's husband did not challenge the termination during his lifetime. The High Court rejected the writ petition on grounds of delay and laches, stating that the appellant could not question the termination order after such a long period. The Supreme Court noted that the dismissal was due to the conviction, and since the conviction was later set aside by the Sessions Court, the appellant could not have challenged the termination earlier. The Court held that the High Court was not justified in rejecting the petition solely on the grounds of delay and laches.

2. Entitlement to Monetary and Service Benefits Post-Acquittal:
The appellant sought monetary and service benefits, arguing that her husband should be deemed in service until retirement due to his acquittal. The High Court dismissed this claim, but the Supreme Court found that since the termination was based on a conviction that was later overturned, the appellant was entitled to relief. The Court referenced the case of G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, emphasizing that while the appellant was not entitled to back wages, she was entitled to pension benefits. The Supreme Court set aside the termination order and directed that the appellant be granted pension benefits.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's orders, and ruled that the appellant was entitled to pension benefits, but not back wages. The Court emphasized the need for a just and equitable approach, considering the appellant's circumstances and the prolonged litigation.

---