Vipul M. Pancholi, J. – The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Clause X of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court Rules against oral Judgment dated 27.02.2020 rendered by learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13042 of 2018.

2. The factual matrix of the case is as under: –

2.1. The present appellant is the original writ petitioner who filed the caption writ petition before this Court in which the writ petitioner had stated that he joined as Government Teacher in Primary School, Dumrawan, Aghoura, Shahabad on 21.06.1971. It is further stated that thereafter on 22.05.1978, FIR bearing Mohania P.S. Case No. 8 of 1978, was lodged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and others and thereafter the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 29.05.1978 from his duty on account of which he is being held an accused in the aforesaid FIR. It is further stated that the learned 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, vide order dated 18.12.1987 convicted the accused persons including the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 1467 of 1979 arising out of Mohania P.S. Case No. 8 of 1978. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Cr. Appeal No. 28 of 1988 against the said judgment and order before the High Court. Thereafter, it is stated that vide orders dated 12.06.1998 and 29.06.1998, the petitioner was dismissed from service on account of the conviction of the petitioner in the aforesaid criminal case. Petitioner, therefore, challenged the order of dismissal by filing C.W.J.C. No. 1974 of 1999 which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 25.04.2000. Petitioner has further stated that he would have superannuated from service on 28.02.2003 if he had not been dismissed earlier on 29.06.1998 on account of his conviction in the aforesaid criminal case.

2.2. It is stated that this Court vide order dated 24.08.2007, dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1988 preferred by the petitioner and thereby confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the concerned trial court to the petitioner. Petitioner, therefore, challenged the said order by filing Cr. Appeal Nos. 493- 494 of 2008 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is also stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 16.02.2017 set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and acquitted him. Petitioner, therefore, made a representation dated 24.07.2017 before the concerned Respondent Authority and prayed that he may be paid full back wages as well as all the terminal benefits on account of the order of acquittal passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Again, similar type of representation was made to the concerned Respondent Authority. However, no reply was given by the Respondents and, therefore, the petitioner referred the caption petition before this Court. The learned Single vide order dated 27.02.2020 dismissed the said petition and, therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present appeal.

3. Heard Mr. Kumar Brijnandan assisted by Dr. Pratyush Kumar, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Priyadarshi Matri Sharan, learned AC to AAG-15 for the Respondent-State.

4. Learned Advocate for the appellant assailed the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge by contending that the appellant was dismissed from service only on account of order of conviction and sentence passed by the concerned trial court against him. However, when the Hon’ble Supreme Court has quashed and set aside the order of conviction and sentence and thereby acquitted the petitioner, the Respondent Authority was duty-bound to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages. However, as the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation in the year 2003, the learned Single Judge ought to have given all the retiral benefits to the petitioner including the back wages. However, the l