( 1 ) HEARD learned advocate Mr. Mukul Sinha for petitioner and learned AGP Mr. N. D. Gohil appearing on behalf of respondent.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the present petition are as under. 2. 1 the petitioner was working as a Deputy Engineer in the Public Works Department. He was served with a charge sheet dated 7. 7. 1972 alleging that he was guilty of negligence in supervising the work of subordinate Junior Engineer and as such he was placed under suspension w. e. f. 1. 10. 1973. Thereafter departmental inquiry was conducted and, the respondent Government, by order dated 13. 4. 1977 quashed the departmental proceedings. Then respondent had, in the meantime, issued another charge sheet dated 8. 12. 1972 and terminated the service of the petitioner by order dated 24. 1. 1979. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the termination order by filing Special Civil Application No. 2638 of 1979 wherein this Court by order dated 24. 12. 1981 had quashed and set aside the order of dismissal and had further directed reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits. Then by order dated 16. 7. 1983 the respondent again reopened the inquiry in respect to old charge sheet dated 7. 7. 1972 and by order dated 15. 12. 1988 the inquiry officer had concluded that the charge Nos. 1 and 2 are partially proved whereas charge Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 were held not proved. On the basis of the said finding the respondent passed a final order of punishment of stoppage of one increment without any future effect by order dated 27. 9. 1989. At that occasion the State Government has not passed any order in respect to regularising the suspension period. Meanwhile, petitioner was retired on 30. 4. 1990 and respondent has granted provisional pension but, no final order was passed in respect of pension. Therefore, petitioner had approached to this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 2785 of 1996 which was dismissed because of delay. Ultimately in Letters Patent Appeal No. 536 of 1996 the Division Bench of this Court has disposed of the matter with a direction to the respondent to decide the question of regularising the suspension period in respect of the show cause notice which was received by the petitioner dated 14. 8. 1998. The Letters Patent Bench also directed the respondent to decide or to take appropriate decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of petitioners reply. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 25. 8. 1998 for regularising the suspension period which was rejected by the State Government declaring the period of suspension to be treated as period as on suspension without giving any reason, consequence of which was not even discussed and no orders on the payment of wages was passed on 10. 11. 1998.

( 3 ) IT is necessary to note one important fact that petitioner was dismissed from service on 24. 1. 1979 and that order was challenged by the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 2633 of 1979. At that occasion on behalf of the respondent State learned AGP Mr. M. M. Jadeja made the statement at Bar that the petitioner will be reinstated in service within a period of two weeks from the date of the said order. In view of that statement the order of dismissal was quashed and set aside and State Government was directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within a period of two weeks from the date of the order and granting him all the consequential benefits including the continuity of service and, the rule was made absolute accordingly. This order was passed by this Court on 24. 12. 1981 on the basis of the letter of the Deputy Secretary (Randb) Department. The said order is quoted as under:"mr. M. M. Jadeja for the respondent-State makes a statement at the Bar that the petitioner will be reinstated in service within two weeks from today. In view of this statement, the impugned order of dismissal is quashed and the State Government is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within