1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents for giving all the dues for the period 14.12.1998 till 13.06.2005 along with interest @ 18% per annum with all other consequential benefits.

2. Facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was appointed as Patwari in the year 1988-89. While he was posted at P.C. No.27, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg, a criminal case was registered against him for commission of offence punishable under Section 456 of IPC, in which charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg and the petitioner was eventually convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs.500/-. On 14.12.1998, the petitioner was terminated on account of his conviction. The Sessions Judge, Durg affirmed the conviction, against which the petitioner preferred a criminal revision before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which was allowed vide order dated 21.04.1999. The petitioner thereafter approached the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Patan [henceforth ‘the SDO (R)’] for his reinstatement, which was rejected and thereafter his appeal was also rejected by the Collector, Durg on the ground that the petitioner’s acquittal was on account of compromise between him and the complainant, therefore, the misconduct has been proved under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965.

3. The petitioner preferred WP No.1673/2002, wherein vide order dated 02.05.2005, the orders passed by the SDO (R), Patan and the Collector, Durg were set aside and he was directed to be reinstated in the services. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated by the SDO (R), Patan on 13.06.2005.

4. After his reinstatement, the petitioner moved an application before the SDO (R), Patan for grant of back wages and other consequential benefits w.e.f. 14.12.1998 till 13.06.2005. The petitioner also prayed for interest for the same period on the amount deposited in his GPF account as per Rule 14 (3) (4) and Rules 29 & 30 of the GPF Rules, 1955 (henceforth ‘the Rules, 1955’).

5. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that once the petitioner was acquitted of the criminal charge by the order passed by the M.P. High Court on 21.04.1999 in Criminal Revision No.1220/1998, the order of suspension based on initiation of criminal case comes to an end and thereafter the petitioner having been reinstated on 13.06.2005, the petitioner is entitled for salary with interest for the period 14.12.1998 (the date of suspension) to 13.06.2005 (the date of reinstatement). Similarly, the petitioner is entitled for interest on GPF amount as per the Rules, 1955.

6. Per contra, the learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner is only entitled for salary from the date of reinstatement and not for any prior period. It is also argued that in earlier writ petition bearing WP No.1673/2002, the petitioner had prayed for entire back wages from the date of termination till the date of joining, but no order was passed on the said relief, meaning thereby the petitioner had either not pressed the relief or the same was impliedly denied, therefore, fresh writ petition for the same relief is not maintainable.

7. In petitioner’s earlier writ petition bearing WP No.1673/2002, the following reliefs were claimed:-

I. The order of the SDO (R), Patan, Durg passed on 14.12.1998 be set aside.

II. The petitioner may kindly be reinstated in service along with back wages from the date of termination to the date of joining in the service.

III. The petitioner may kindly be awarded compensation for the period of his illegal termination along with cost of proceedings.

8. When the above writ petition was decided on 02.05.2005 by an order dictated on board, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned orders were quashed and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner in service, however, no order in respect of back wages was passed.