ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Pathik M. Acharya for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Nidhi Vyas for the respondent-State.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

"7.(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari/Mandamus or any other appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari/Mandamus by directing Respondent to calculate the pension of the Petitioner as per regular service of the Petitioner without deducting suspension period from 2.05.2002 to 11.06.2006 of service and pay the difference of the pension to the Petitioner;

(AA) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari/Mandamus or any other appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari/Mandamus by quashing and setting aside order passed by Respondent no.2 dated 12.07.2021 not regularizing suspension period from 2.05.2002 to 11.05.2006 of service and pay the difference of the pension to the Petitioner and with that also hold that the suspension period of petitioner is required to be regularized pending Acquittal appeal and the Petitioner is entitled for difference of the pension and other retiral benefits for suspension period;

(B) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to regulate the suspension period of the Petitioner and decide the representations made before the Respondent no.2 authorities in the year 2020;

(C) Your Lordships be pleased to pass such other and further orders as the facts and circumstances of the case may require."

3. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Acharya for the petitioner, it would appear that the petitioner, who had been arraigned in a criminal case under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, had been proceeded against and whereas the petitioner upon being named in an FIR, had remained under suspension from 02.05.2002 to 11.05.2006. It appears that vide judgment and order dated 24.11.2006 passed by the learned Trial Court, the present petitioner had been acquitted from the charges levelled against him and whereas the State had preferred a criminal appeal before this Court being Criminal Appeal No. 390 of 2007. It appears that in the interregnum, while the petitioner had been paid pension and other retiral benefits, the period of suspension had not been regularized and no appropriate benefits had been forwarded to the petitioner for such period, prompting the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents and whereas vide an order dated 12.07.2021, the respondents had replied to the said representation inter alia informing that appropriate decision with regard to regularizing the period of suspension and making appropriate payment on the said basis, would be taken by the respondents after the acquittal appeal is finally decided by this Court. The said order has been subjected to challenge before this Court.

4. At this stage, before delving further into the facts, it would appear that vide judgment dated 13.04.2023, a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had decided the Criminal Appeal No.390 of 2007 inasmuch as, the appeal preferred by the State had been dismissed. While it would appear that even after the said decision, the petitioner had submitted certain representations, but since the same are not on record this Court would not go into the said aspect.

5. In the considered opinion of this Court, while it does not appear appear to this Court that the respondents were in any manner justified in not regularizing the period of suspension after the petitioner had been acquitted by a competent court, yet, considering the fact that this Court had also dismissed the acquittal appeal preferred by the State, therefore even the said objection would not have any legs to stand. Thus, appropriate directions are required to be issued to the respondent authorities to regularize the period of suspension.

6. Considering the above discussion and o