JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. Heard Ms. Mamoni Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri R. Dhar, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate as well as Shri S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department. 2. The present approach to this Court by means of this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for the following relief:- “a. To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent authorities to regularized the service of the petitioner w.e.f. the date of his initial joining i.e. 11.05.1996. b. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction towards setting aside and quashing the impugned decision dated 27.09.2018 of the Govt. of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Assam. c. To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent authorities to pay all arrear salary of the petitioner with all consequential benefits. d. To pass such other or further order/orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Lot Mondol in the Revenue Department in the year 1996. However, during the discharge of his service, he was implicated in a criminal case and was arrested. Accordingly, an order was passed on 01.04.2000 for placing him under suspension. The aforesaid criminal case had ended in a conviction and accordingly the petitioner was dismissed from service. However, the order of conviction was the subject matter of an appeal preferred by the petitioner in this Court which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 69/2005. The said criminal appeal was allowed by this Court on 17.09.2009 by setting aside the judgment of conviction which was under Section 304-B of the IPC. 4. As a consequence of such setting aside by this Court, the petitioner was re- instated in service vide an order dated 06.03.2010. The grievance of the petitioner is however against an order dated 27.09.2018 whereby he was held to be not entitled for pay and allowance for the period of his dismissal from 18.05.2006 to 06.03.2010. 4. As a consequence of such setting aside by this Court, the petitioner was re- instated in service vide an order dated 06.03.2010. The grievance of the petitioner is however against an order dated 27.09.2018 whereby he was held to be not entitled for pay and allowance for the period of his dismissal from 18.05.2006 to 06.03.2010. The further grievance of the petitioner, as expressed by the learned counsel is that he is due to retire on 28.02.2025 and as his service has not been regularized, he would be deprived of the pensionery and post retirement benefits. 5. Ms. Das, the learned counsel, by drawing the attention of this Court to the order of re-instatement dated 06.03.2010 has submitted that the said order has clearly reflected that the re-instatement was in the original post from the date of his joining. She has also submitted that the dismissal from service being a consequence of the order of conviction dated 03.03.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (FTC), Nagaon which was set aside by this Court vide judgment dated 17.09.2009, the respondents would not be justified in withholding the monetary benefits for the period. The learned counsel has also highlighted the aspect that even if the issue of backwage is overlooked for the time being, not regularizing the service of the petitioner would cause immense prejudice to his entitlement for his post retirement benefits. She submits that the petitioner has to be deemed to be in service since the order of re-instatement passed on 06.03.2010 has clearly stated that such re-instatement would be in the original post. 6. Per contra, Shri Dutta, the learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department has submitted that the claim for the arrears may not be justified in view of the fact that the petitioner did not render service during the said period of time. By drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 06.11.2024, the learned Standing Counsel has referred to the averments made in paragraphs 8 & 9 of the same which reads as follows:- “8. That with regard to the statement made in paragraphs 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Writ Petition the deponent has no comment to offer. However, the deponent does not admit anything which is contrary to the records. 9. That with regard to the statement made in paragraphs 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Writ Petition the deponent has no comment to offer. However, the deponent does not admit anything which is contrary to the records. 9. That with regard to the statement made in paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the Writ Petition, the Deponent respectfully states that vide letter under No.RLR.54/2012/40 dated 27.09.2018 the Office of the deponent intimated to the then Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon that the Petitioner is not entitled to receive pay and allowances for the period of his dismissal from service w.e.f., 18.05.2006 to 06.03.2010 as his acquittal from the criminal case was not honourable i.e., based on benefit of doubt. Since the Petitioner has not worked for the period he was out of service due to his conviction in the criminal case, the competent authority has rightly treated the period as not spent on duty for all intent and purposes.” 7 . The learned Standing Counsel has also relied upon the case of Baldev Singh Vs Union of India and Ors . reported in (2005) 8 SCC 747 wherein it has been laid down that mere acquittal of an employee in a criminal case would not automatically entitle him for a claim for the wages for the said period. In the said case, it has been laid down as follows: “7. As the factual position noted clearly indicates the appellant was not in actual service for the period he was in custody. Merely because there has been an acquittal does not automatically entitle him to get salary for the concerned period. This is more so, on the logic of no work no pay. It is to be noted that the appellant was terminated from service because of the conviction. Effect of the same does not get diluted because of subsequent acquittal for the purpose of counting service. The aforesaid position was clearly stated in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) and Anr. [ (1996) 11 SCC 603 ].” 8. Shri Dhar, the learned State Counsel has submitted that affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent no. 3 on 06.09.2024 whereby the claims of the petitioner have been denied. 9 . The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. [ (1996) 11 SCC 603 ].” 8. Shri Dhar, the learned State Counsel has submitted that affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent no. 3 on 06.09.2024 whereby the claims of the petitioner have been denied. 9 . The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. 10. The relief prayed for in this writ petition is more on the aspect of regularization of the service of the petitioner from the date of his initial joining i.e. 11.05.1996. Though the order dated 27.09.2018 is also a subject matter of challenge, the emphasis is more on the aspect of regularization. The said order dated 27.09.2018 has laid down the disentitlement of the pay and allowances for the period when the petitioner was not in service, namely, 18.05.2006 to 06.03.2010. 11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was facing a criminal trial in which vide a judgment and order dated 03.03.2005 passed by a competent Court, he was convicted and sentenced under certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The said order was however the subject matter of Crl. Appl. No. 69/2005 which was allowed by this Court on 17.09.2009 by setting aside the impugned order dated 03.03.2005. Consequent thereto, the petitioner was re-instated in service on 06.03.2010. 12 . From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it appears that it is not the case that the petitioner was forcefully prevented from the discharge in his duties but such action was backed by an order passed by the competent Court. The order of this Court has clarified that the conviction was interfered as there was absence of substantive and cogent evidence against him. In that context, the stand taken by the respondent authorities to justify the action not to release the pay and allowance for the aforesaid period does not appear to be unreasonable. However, so far as the aspect of the other service benefits are concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the order of re-instatement dated 06.03.2010 has made it clear that such re-instatement would be in the original post. 13. Though the aspect of back wages, as already held may not be a matter of indefeasible right, the petitioner would be entitled to the other notional service benefits including the post retirement benefits. 14 . 13. Though the aspect of back wages, as already held may not be a matter of indefeasible right, the petitioner would be entitled to the other notional service benefits including the post retirement benefits. 14 . The judgment of Baldev Singh (supra) had relied upon the case of Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) and Anr. reported in (1996) 11 SCC 603 wherein the following was laid down: “3. The reinstatement of the petitioner into the service has already been ordered by the High Court. The only question is : Whether he is entitled to back wages? It was his conduct of involving himself in the crime that was taken into account for his not being in service of the respondent. Consequent upon his acquittal, he is entitled to reinstatement for the reason that his service was terminated on the basis of the conviction by operation of proviso to the statutory rules applicable to the situation. The question of back wages would be considered only if the respondents have taken action by way of disciplinary proceedings and the action was found to be unsustainable in law and he was unlawfully prevented from discharging the duties. In that context, his conduct becomes relevant. Each case requires to be considered in his own backdrops. In this case, since the petitioner had involved himself in a crime, though he was later acquitted, he had disabled himself from rendering the service on account of conviction and incarceration in jail. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to payment of back wages. The learned single Judge and the Division Bench have not committed any error of law warranting interference.” 15 . In that view of the matter, while the action of the respondent authorities not to pay the back wages for the period in question, namely, 18.05.2006 to 06.03.2010 is not interfered with, it is directed that the aforesaid period has to be treated to be a part of the continuous service of the petitioner and all notional benefits including the post retirement benefits are to be granted to him. Since this Court has been informed that the petitioner is to retire on 28.02.2025, necessary steps for grant and release of pensionery benefits be taken by the concerned authorities. 16 . Writ petition accordingly stands allowed in the manner indicated above. 17 . Cost made easy.