M.R. Shah, J.

1. As common question of law and facts arise in present Letters Patent Appeal as well as Special Civil Application, both Letters Patent Appeal as well as Special Civil Application are decided and disposed of together by this common judgment ad order.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No. 9471 of 2014, by which, the learned Single Judge has allowed the said Special Civil Application preferred by the respondent and has directed the appellants to pay full back wages from the date of acquittal till the respondent attained the age of superannuation, on subsequently being acquitted, original respondents management Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited and others have preferred the present Letter Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

3. The issue involved in Special Civil Application No. 1415 of 2016 with respect to another employee is as similar to that of present Letters Patent Appeal, Special Civil Application No. 1415 of 2016 is ordered to be tagged and heard along with present Letters Patent Appeal. By way of Special Civil Application No. 1415 of 2016, the petitioner employee has prayed for appropriate writ, direction and order directing the respondent authorities to pay terminal benefits including back wages, arrears of wages for the period of suspension etc.

4. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the Letters Patent Appeal as well as Special Civil Application, both the respective employees who were working with the Electricity Company were facing conviction for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Considering the relevant Regulation, more particularly, considering GSO7, on their conviction by the competent criminal Court, both of them came to be dismissed from service and on their subsequent acquittal by the High Court by giving benefit of doubt n one case and by acquitting in another case, the concerned employees challenged the order of termination on the ground that basis for termination i.e. conviction do not stand/exists. In the meantime, the respective petitioners attained the age of superannuation and therefore, the question arose with respect to retirement benefits/pensionary benefits as if order of termination do not exists and also back wages for the period between the date of acquittal ill age of superannuation.

4.1. That by impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the Special Civil Application No. 9471 of 2014 and has directed the employer to pay retirement benefits/pensionary benefits as if order of termination do not exist and also directed the employer to pay back wages for the interregnum period i.e. for the period between date of termination till employee attained the age of superannuation. The same is subject matter of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1234 of 2016.

5. Shri D.R. Dave, learned advocate and Shri Hasurkar, learned advocate have appeared on behalf of the Electricity Company and employer. Shri D.G. Shukla, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the respective employees. It is vehemently submitted by learned advocate for the employer that as such as per the GSO7, a person who is convicted by the competent Criminal Court is ineligible to become employee of the electricity company and on the conviction their services is liable to be terminated as they were thereafter disqualified to be continued in service. It is submitted that therefore on conviction, the concerned employees could not have been continued in service. It is submitted that therefore, the employer was justified in terminating the services of the concerned employees. It is submitted that therefore, learned Single Judge has materially erred in directing the appellant employer to pay back wages/full wages from the date of termination till they attained the age of superannuat