JUDGMENT :

Rahul Bharti, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

2. The facts of this case wrap up a legal issue which is that upon acquittal of the petitioner in an appeal from a conviction in a criminal case, should the reinstatement in service of the petitioner have taken place from and with retrospective date and effects or from the prospective date and effects. The petitioner claims retrospect and the respondent No. 1 has granted prospect and that has created the text and context of the present writ petition.

3. By the aforesaid reference, the facts of the case have a very concise frame. The petitioner was in service of the respondent No. 1 i.e. National Insurance Company Limited, serving as an assistant in the clerical cadre on permanent basis. In the year, 2004, the petitioner came to be booked by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Anti-Corruption Branch, Jammu in a case for an act of accepting and receiving illegal gratification of an amount of Rs.1,500/-. The petitioner was booked on the basis of a trap set up by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) at the instance of a complainant namely Layaqat Ali.