A public servant acquitted of criminal charges is entitled to have their representation for regularisation of the period of absence from service considered by the employer in accordance with applicable fundamental service rules.

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to regularize the period of absence from 13.02.2009 to 24.08.2025 as duty period in accordance with Ruling 9(b) of Fundamental Rule 54 and disburse the monetary benefits along with arrears to the petitioner within the time period stipulated by this Court.

O R D E R

The writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to regularise the period of absence from 13.02.2009 to 24.08.2025 as duty period, in accordance with Ruling 9(b) of Fundamental Rule 54, and to disburse the consequential monetary benefits along with arrears to the petitioner within a time frame to be stipulated by this Court.

2.The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner, while serving as a Junior Engineer, was convicted in Special Case No.5 of 2014 by judgment dated 30.08.2018. Consequent to the said conviction, the petitioner was removed from service on the very same day, i.e., 30.08.2018. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred an criminal appeal in Crl.A.(MD).No.444 of 2018 before this Court, and this Court, by judgment dated 31.01.2025, acquitted the petitioner of the charges. Pursuant to which, the petitioner was reinstated into service by order dated 04.08.2025.

3.Thus, the petitioner remained out of service from 30.08.2018 till 04.08.2025. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 12.03.2026 seeking regularisation of the said period of non-employment under Ruling 9(b) of Fundamental Rule 54.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the said period of break in service is liable to be regularised in terms of Ruling 9(b) of Fundamental Rule 54.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the Government fairly submitted that the petitioner’s representation would be considered in accordance with law, under Ruling 9(b) of Fundamental Rule 54, as expeditiously as possible.

6.In view of the above, without going into the merits of the claim, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 12.03.2026 and pass appropriate orders, duly taking into account Ruling 9(b) of Fundamental Rule 54, as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.