Parmod Kohli, J.

1. While working as Personnel Manager with the respondent-Company, petitioner was involved in a criminal ease instituted by CBI in the year 1984 under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B, IPC on the allegation of some fraud and forgery in respect of grant of employment to some Class. III and IV employees in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. It is alleged that petitioner was falsely implicated. On registration of a charge-sheet, the case was presented before the Spl. Judicial Magistrate, (CBI) Dhanbad which was registered as RC Case No. 3 and 9 of 1984 TR No. 40 of 1998. Petitioner along with others were convicted vide judgment dated 21.12.1998. Petitioner was awarded sentence of one years RI. On his conviction he was served with a notice dated 10.2.1999 calling upon him to show cause as to why penalties under Rule 27 should not be imposed on him. Petitioner submitted a reply stating therein that he had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. In view of the conviction respondent-Company passed an order dated 6.7.1999 for dismissal of the petitioner from the service under Rule 34.1 of Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 of Coal India Ltd. Petitioners appeal remained pending and he retired from service on 31.8.2002. After his retirement, the Appellate Court i.e., 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad vide his judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1999 preferred by the petitioner against his conviction acquitted the petitioner. Appellate Court observed that petitioners name did not figure in any of the FIRs as also returned the findings that no case has been established against the petitioner. On the basis of judgment of acquittal passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, petitioner preferred a representation seeking reinstatement in the service from the date of his dismissal and all consequential benefits. His representation was not considered Petitioner preferred W.P. (S) No. 1619 of 2004 before this Court which came to be disposed of vide order dated 24.3.2004 and the direction was issued to the Chairman-cum- Managing Director, BCCL, Dhanbad to dispose of the representation if any, pending before him within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order. Petitioner preferred representation dated 24.3.2004 asking for implementation of the judgment of the High Court. Petitioners representation has been disposed of vide impugned communication dated 3.6.2004 and rejected the claim of the petitioner for back wages/salary for the period of conviction i.e. from 6.7.1999 to 31.8.2002. He has also been denied bonus for the same period as also Block LTC, Medical Bills for self and family and leave encashment for the aforesaid period, though, period was counted for the purpose of gratuity. Petitioner is aggrieved of aforesaid communication to the extent he has been denied back wages and other service benefits. Respondents have denied the service benefits relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Union of India v. Jaipal Singh, reported in 2003 (4) JCR 222 (SC).

2. Petitioner has accordingly sought quashment of the impugned communication dated 3.6.2004, order of dismissal dated 6.7.1999 and with further directions for payment of his salary and all other service benefits up to the date of his retirement on 31.8.2002. Respondents have resisted the claim of the petitioner on the same ground as urged in the impugned communication.

3. Only ground that needs to be considered is whether the petitioner is entitled to salary and back wages after his acquittal by the Appellate Court for the period he was out of job on account of his dismissal vide dismissal order dated 6.7.1999 on his conviction. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment in case of Union of India v. Jaipal Singh (supra). This judgment is also the basis for denial of the claim of the petitioner as is evident from the impugned communication dated 3.6.