Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J.

1. The only question which falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the acquittal of the petitioner from criminal case entitles him to regularizing the period of his absence from the date of his conviction to the date of his reinstatement in service for the purpose of pay and allowances? The controversy arose on the following facts and circumstances:--

"While the petitioner was serving as Headmaster of an L.P. School under the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Barpeta, a case under Section 302 IPC was registered against him. He was subsequently arrested and remanded to jail. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against him in Sessions Case No. 31(B)/90. He was then tried, convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta vide the judgment dated 11.5.1992. Following his conviction, the Deputy Inspector of School, Barpeta issued the order dated 2.7.1992, discharging him from service. The petitioner then preferred an appeal being Cril. Appeal No. 68/92 from the judgment dated 11.5.1992, but his appeal was dismissed by the High Court by the judgment dated 20.5.1993. The petitioner thereafter preferred Criminal Appeal No. 434/1994 before the Apex Court, which by the judgment dated 18.9.2002 allowed the appeal and acquitted him. After obtaining the copy of the judgment dated 18.9.2002, he filed an application to the respondents for allowing him to resume his duty with current and back salaries. Ultimately, the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Barpeta by the order dated 12.6.2003 reinstated him to service, allowed him to join as Assistant Head Teacher of No. 965, Hajipara L.P. School and held that his service would be regularized from the date of his discharge from service if and when approved by the appropriate authority. He thereafter joined his post and is still continuing in service. At this stage, it may be noted that no separate departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. It is contended by the petitioner that he, following his acquittal, is entitled to regularization of the period of his discharge from service till his reinstatement in service for payment of back wages. The representations made by him from time to time to that effect have not met any positive response whereupon he is constrained to file this writ petition."

2. The respondent authorities contested the writ petition and filed their affidavit-in-opposition. The stance taken by them is that the petitioner got himself involved in a criminal case leading to his conviction, and the Department has nothing to do with such conviction: the Department cannot in any manner be faulted with for his plight. It is, therefore, contended by the answering respondents that the Department cannot, therefore, be held liable for payment of salaries and allowances for the period for which his services were not availed of by them: the question of payment of back wages as claimed by the petitioner does not arise.

3. Mr. M.U. Mahmud, the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that when the petitioner is honourably acquitted, he is entitled to full pay which he would have been entitled to had he not been discharged from service. Strong reliance is placed by him on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Assam v. R. Rajagopalachari and Vice Versa, AIR 1970 SC 57 to fortify his submission. Per contra, Mr. R. Mazumdar, the learned standing counsel for the Education (Elementary) Department, Assam, supports the impugned decision and submits that the Department was in no way concerned with the criminal case in which the petitioner found himself involved and got incarcerated in jail, and the Department cannot, therefore, be saddled with the liability to pay back wages for the period when he was out of service during/after conviction suffered by him in the criminal case: the respondents cannot be made liable for the period for whic