JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant a patwari was trapped in a corruption case and convicted by a competent court by judgment dated 25.2.1985. However, the judgment of conviction was reversed by the judgment of the High Court dated 16.1.2001. After acquittal, the question of reinstatement did not arise as he had already reached to the age of superannuation. However, the appellant claimed retiral benefits. 2. The appellant approached to this court by way of writ petition seeking direction for payment of arrears of salary and retiral benefits. Learned Single Judge relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Hinimatnagar (Gujarat) & Another, reported in 1996 (11) SCC 6003 dismissed the writ petition. In the said case it is held that where the Government servant had involved himself in a crime, though he was acquitted later on, is not entitled to payment of back-wages for the period he had disabled himself from rendering the service on account of conviction and the incarceration in jail. The learned Single Judge has held that the petitioner is not entitled for arrears of salary, however, in case the petitioner has rendered the qualifying service, his case could be considered for retiral benefits. A direction has been given to consider the representation, if made for retiral benefits within the time specified. 3. The learned counsel has tried to distinguish the case of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned Single Judge. He has invited our attention to the following observation:- "Each case requires to be considered in its own backdrop." 4. Learned counsel stretching the above quoted observation, submitted that the Apex Court has not laid down a law that in all cases where the accused has remained in jail, irrespective of the fact that he has been acquitted shall not be entitled for the wages for the said period. We are not persuaded by the contention raised by the learned counsel. In the instant case, the appellant was tried on a serious charge of corruption. He has been acquitted on a technical ground. This aspect has been considered by the learned Single Judge. 5. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge which calls for interference by-this court. The special appeal is dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******