Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Ram Kishor Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Raj Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking the following relief:

“5. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to pay pensionary benefit to the petitioner from the date of his superannuation from service;

VI. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 2.9.2013 passed by respondent No. 3 rejecting the representation dated 26.4.2004 submitted by the petitioner.”

3. The petitioner was a regular employee with the respondent No. 3 and was working on the post of Ward Boy at Rajkiya Ayurvedic & Unani Chikitsalya, Dhagwa, district Hamirpur. In the year 1978 a First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner and the petitioner has been sent to jail. The petitioner has been suspended vide order dated 8.9.1978. The petitioner has been sentenced to life imprisonment vide judgment and order dated 5.5.1981 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Session Trial No. 257/78, under Sections 302, 34 I.P.C. In pursuance thereof, the services of the petitioner has been terminated vide order dated 19.10.1981, w.e.f. 5.5.1981, the date on which the petitioner has been convicted by the Sessions Court. Against the conviction order, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 1017 of 1981, which has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 5.3.2004 and the petitioner has been acquitted. After the acquittal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the termination order dated 19.10.1981. The petitioner filed amendment application claiming post retiral benefits from the date of his superannuation and further prayed for quashing of the order dated 2.9.2013 rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated 25.6.2004.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the services of the petitioner appears to have been terminated under the Proviso of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India after the petitioner being convicted by the Sessions Court vide order dated 5.5.1981 without making any enquiry. No departmental enquiry proceeded and has not been culminated into any punishment. The termination of the petitioner is mechanical without application of mind. Now the petitioner has been acquitted on merit by this Court honourably, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with all benefits. However, since the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, the petitioner’s service can only be notionally reinstated and the petitioner may be allowed to be reinstated with full salary and further the pensionary benefits from the date of superannuation.

5. In support of the contention, reliance is placed on the decision of learned Single Judge in the case of Ratan Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (11) ADJ 352, in the case of Constable 491, Civil Police, Gabbar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2013(3) ESC 1625 (All) : 2013(7) ADJ 76 (NOC), in the case of Prem Pal Singh v. State of U.P., 2007(9) ADJ 8 and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Vinai Sinha, 2010 SCC (15) 305.

6. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that it was open to the petitioner to challenge the termination order in the year 1981. He further submitted that the petitioner has been given benefit of doubt by this Court while acquitting from the criminal charges. He submitted that the petitioner has not made any pleading that he was unemployed during the period of termination and, therefore, in any view of the matter, he is not entitled for any salary for the period after termination.

7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

8. Present writ petition has been filed in the year 2004 challenging the termination order dated 19.10.1981 when the petitioner was acquitted in Criminal Appeal No. 1017 of 1981 in resp