( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against the summary dismissal of Special Civil Application No. 9527 of 1999.

( 2 ) APPELLANT was the original petitioner. He was prosecuted for offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He was, however, acquitted by a Special Court. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the acquittal recorded by the trial court, the State has filed Criminal Appeal No. 758 of 1994. The said appeal is already admitted by this Court and is pending for final hearing.

( 3 ) IT appears that after the appellant was acquitted, an order of reinstatement was passed in his favour on 6/09/1995 - (Annexure c to the petition ). The appellant, in view of the acquittal recorded by the Special Judge was ordered to be reinstated on certain terms and conditions. One of the conditions provided that since a decision was taken to challenge the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court by filing an appeal in the High Court of Gujarat, the appellant would be bound by the decision which would be rendered by the High Court of Gujarat and in the meanwhile he will not claim regularisation of the period of suspension. The appellant was actually reinstated on 30. 9. 1995 but he did not give undertaking which was to be given as per the terms and conditions of the order of reinstatement Annexure c. Hence, a communication came to be issued on 12. 9. 1996 Annexure d. The appellant, by a letter on 18/09/1996 informed the department that he would not insist for regularisation of his services till the appeal filed against him will be finally disposed of (Annexure e to the petition ).

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, the appellant had made prayer for regularisation of his services in accordance with the provisions of Rule 152 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). The said prayer was rejected by the authorities against which the petition was filed.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the authority, as an appeal against the order of acquittal is preferred, admitted and is pending before the High Court of Gujarat, no prayer for regularisation of services of the petitioner can be granted.

( 6 ) LEARNED Single Judge held that the acquittal had not attained the stage of finality in view of the fact that the acquittal was very much before this Court in an appeal against the acquittal filed by the State of Gujarat. Non-passing of order under Rule 152 of the Rules, hence, cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to law.

( 7 ) THE above order is challenged by the appellant before us.

( 8 ) TWO contentions were raised by Mr Paresh Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the appellant. He urged that once the trial was over and the appellant was acquitted, he ought to have been regularised and the period of suspension ought to have been treated "as on duty" by passing an order for payment of salary of intervening period. In this connection, our attention was invited to Rule 152 of the Rules which provides as to when a Government servant on reinstatement, will be treated "as on duty" for all purposes.

( 9 ) IN the alternative, the counsel submitted that if this Court is of the view that no such direction could have been issued, at least a limited direction should be issued to the authorities to consider the case of the appellant and to decide the question in accordance with law.

( 10 ) IN our opinion, none of the contentions can be upheld. So far as the first prayer is concerned, the relevant provision is Rule 152 of the Rules. The said Rule is material in deciding the controversy raised in this appeal and requires to be quoted in extenso. "152. (1) When a Government servant who has been dismissed, removed or suspended is reinstated, the authority competent to or the reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order - (A) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of his absence from duty; and (B) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. (2)