[2025:RJ-JP:5703] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7922/2005 Akhatar Islam Hashami Son Of Shri Kaji Abdul Alim Hashami, By Caste Muslim, Havelishahar Kaji Sahib, Chhipo Ka Mohalla, Near Jama Maszid, Old Tonk Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 2. The Joint Director Training, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 3. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Ajmer Zone, Ajmer. 4. The District Education Officer, Secondary Education Department, Tonk Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Akhil Simlote with Mr.Asvini Tanwar For Respondent(s) : Ms.Anjum Parveen Salawat for Ms.Namita Parihar, Dy.GC. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/02/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a prayer has been made for payment of the retiral dues. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted in a criminal case bearing No.20/1994 and he was found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 471 & 120-B of IPC by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk vide judgment dated 01.11.2001. Counsel submits that on the basis of the said judgment, the services of the petitioner were terminated. [2025:RJ-JP:5703] (2 of 3) [CW-7922/2005] 3. Counsel submits that against the judgment of conviction, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tract) No.4, Tonk wherein the same was allowed and the petitioner has been acquitted from all the charges. 4. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get all retiral benefits. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State-respondents opposed the prayer and submits that on the basis of judgment of conviction, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondents vide order dated 31.03.2004, hence under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any termination/ retiral benefits. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 7. Perusal of the termination order indicates that the sole reason for termination of the petitioner from service is his conviction vide judgment dated 01.11.2001 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk in Criminal Case No.444/1993. This fact is not in dispute that subsequently, the appeal submitted by the petitioner against the said judgment of conviction has been allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Tonk and the petitioner has been acquitted. 8. Now looking toward the changed circumstances, in the fitness of the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition stands disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation along-with copy of the judgment dated 22.06.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track) [2025:RJ-JP:5703] (3 of 3) [CW-7922/2005] No.4, Tonk. In case, such representation/ application is submitted by the petitioner within a period of one month from today, it is expected from the said authorities to pass appropriate orders expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months thereafter. 9. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /52