1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant him all consequential benefits arising out of his acquittal in the criminal case including payment of all his service/retiral claims.

2. Facts necessary for adjudication of the issues raised in the writ petition are that while working as Superintendent-cum-District Ayurvedic Officer in the Department of Public Health and Family Welfare, Government of Madhya Pradesh being posted at Durg, the petitioner was trapped for obtaining illegal gratification of Rs.3000/- out of the total demand of Rs.5000/- from complainant Ram Khilawan Mishra on 21.07.1997. Consequent to the said trap, the petitioner was prosecuted for committing offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) & Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. By order dated 13.02.1998, the petitioner was suspended under Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (in short "the Rules of 1966"). The criminal trial ultimately ended in his acquittal by judgment dated 07.04.1999 passed by Special Judge, Durg, in Special Case No. 1/1998 (Annexure P-5). Consequent upon his acquittal, the petitioner submitted representations filed collectively as Annexure P-6 for his reinstatement and payment of all the consequential benefits. In the meanwhile, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2000, therefore, he was reinstated and superannuated from the said date vide Annexure P-2.

3. The Director, Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy, Government of Madhya Pradesh allowed 75% pension as anticipatory pension. On his, representations, Director, Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy, Chhattisgarh, informed his counter-part in the State of M.P., to take appropriate decision on his representations and his service book was sent to the Directorate at Bhopal. However, when his entire claims during suspension period and all other service, benefits/retiral dues remained unpaid, the present petition has been preferred seeking reliefs claimed as mentioned in Para 1 of this judgment/order.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that once the petitioner has been acquitted in the Criminal Trial, the respondents were under legal obligation to reinstate him with all consequential benefits as there was no legal impediment in granting service benefits admissible to the petitioner. He would submit that in absence of any regular departmental enquiry, being constituted against the petitioner, the respondents ought to have settled all the service claims of the petitioner soon after his acquittal in criminal trial.

5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel as also learned counsel for Respondents 3 & 4 i.e., State of M.P., would justify the action of the respondents on submission that even though the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal trial, he is not entitled to full back wages as if he was on duty during the entire period of suspension. They would submit that the decision with regard to regularization of his suspension period would depend upon consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case which may include limiting payment of wages to the extent he has been paid subsistence allowance because the petitioner has not worked during the period of suspension.

6. As far as petitioner's claim for regularization of the period of suspension is concerned, there is no specific provision contained either in Rule 9 of the Rules of 1966 or Rule 54-A & 54-B of the Fundamental Rules. In an identical fact situation, this aspect was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Pandey Vs. State of Chhattigarh and Others (Writ Appeal No.89 of 2010, decided on 07-05-2010). In that case also, employee was acquitted from all the criminal charges. The State filed an appeal against the judgment of acquittal, but the period of suspension was not regul