JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Briefly stated the facts, as gathered from the pleadings exchanged by and between the rival parties, are that the petitioner, who was working as Grade IV employee at Khawlian Sub-Centre at Khawlian under respondent No. 3, Director, Health Services., etc. Govt. of Mizoram, Aizawl, was put under suspension with effect from 1.6.1992 vide order dated 24.8.1992 for the reason that a case against the petitioner in respect of criminal offence was under investigation and he was detained under custody on 1.6.1992 for a period exceeding 48 hours. In fact, a criminal case, on the basis of Aizawl P.S Case No. 442/ 92 under Section 408 IPC which was registered by the court as G.R Case No. 631/92, was initiated for alleged involvement of the petitioner in misappropriation of pay and allowances of staffs of Phuaibuang Sub-Health Centre amounting to Rs. 19,824. Eventually, the criminal case was ended discharge of the petitioner. The discharge order was passed on 5.6.2002 by the Addl. District Magistrate (J), Aizawl which reads as under : 5.6.2002 The petitioner G. Lalrotluanga IV Grade, N.E Khawdungsei appeared through his counsel Dr. C.V.L Auva for the prosecution, the Learned Member, MACT, Aizawl A.P.P.P. appeared. Heard. By my Order dated 26.4.2002 the prosecution is directed to reconstruct the case arising out of Aizawl P.S Case No. 442/92 Under Section 408 IPC and which was registered by the Court Registry as G.R No. 631/92. The original case record with all the documents submitted thereto were burnt down when some Office under the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl had been gutted by fire on the night of 29th November, 1994. Now, the prosecution is unable to reconstruct the case and I am constrained to discharge the applicant Lalrotluanga from the liability of the charge under Section 408 IPC and as such hereby do. Given copy of this order to the petitioner, Learned Member, MACT, Aizawl P.P. District Magistrate, Aizawi, Learned Member, MACT, Aizawl counsel for applicant, O/C Aizawl P.S and to the Prosecuting Inspector i/ c G.R Branch. Sd/- K.L Liana Addl. Magistrate (J), Aizawl District, Aizawl. 2. Immediately alter such discharge of the petitioner, the competent authority, i.e., respondent No. 3, Director, Health Services, etc. Govt. Sd/- K.L Liana Addl. Magistrate (J), Aizawl District, Aizawl. 2. Immediately alter such discharge of the petitioner, the competent authority, i.e., respondent No. 3, Director, Health Services, etc. Govt. of Mizoram, Aizawl vide office order dated 30.9.2002 reinstated the petitioner into service as lie was acquitted from the charge leveled against him with further order that in exercise of the power conferred by FR 54(A)3, the period of suspension of the petitioner till his reinstatement would be treated as on duly for the purpose of pension only and the salary for the period of his suspension period may be restricted to subsistence allowance already given to him. The order, dated 30.9.2002 may be quoted as under : GOVERNMENT OF MIZORAM DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES Dated Aizawl, the 30.7.2002 OFFICE ORDER Whereas an order placing Pu G. Lalrotluanga IV Grade, Khawlian Sub-Centre under suspension was made by the Director of Health Services, Mizoram, Aizawl with effect from 1.6.1992 vide Order No.352 Dt. 24.8.1992. And, whereas, the accused Pu. G. Lalrotluanga, has been acquitted from the charge leveled against him by the order of Addl. District Magistrate (J), Aizawl on 5.6.2002 issued Under Memo No. 371/Adm(J)/02 dated 5.6.2002 vide under Section 408 1PC. Now, therefore, the undersigned in exercise of the power conferred by Clause (C) of Sub-rule 5 of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 hereby orders that Pu G. Lalrotluanga IV Grade is reinstated into service from the date of joining at Silsuri Sub-Centre tinder Chief Medical Officer. The undersigned also further orders that in exercise of the powers conferred by F.R 54(A)(3) the period of suspension of Pu. G. Lalrotluanga IV Grade till reinstatement will be treated as on duty for the purpose of pension only and his salary for the period of his suspension may be reinstated to subsistence allowance already given to him. Sd/- (Dr. VALALSIAMA) Director of Health Services Mizoram : Aizawl Memo No. C18014/1V GRI/DHSC/9 Dated Aizawl the 25th/9/2002 3. Feeling dissatisfied with the last paragraph of the order referred to above, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus and/or Certiorari or any appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to give him back wages during the period of suspension. 4. Feeling dissatisfied with the last paragraph of the order referred to above, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus and/or Certiorari or any appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to give him back wages during the period of suspension. 4. The contentions and averments made in the writ position was controverted by the State-respondent by filing affidavit-in-opposition string stating herein that though the petitioner was reinstated into service treating the period of his suspension as on duty only for purpose of pension only and salary for the period of suspension was restricted to subsistence allowance, already given to him, he was not enisled to get any back wages as he was not acquitted by the trial Court on merit. It is evident from the order dated 5.6.2002 as referred to hereinabove that he was discharged from his charge solely for want of original case records alongwith the documents which were gutted by fire in the night of 29.11.1994 for which the records could not be reconstructed. Thus, there is no scope for giving him full pay and allowances as he was not exonerated on merit. 5. Heard Dr. C.V.L. Auva, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Sailb and Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned Govt. counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 6. I have also carefully examined the entire materials available on record so produced by Mr. Sailo, learned Govt. counsel as directed by this Court. 5. Heard Dr. C.V.L. Auva, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Sailb and Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned Govt. counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 6. I have also carefully examined the entire materials available on record so produced by Mr. Sailo, learned Govt. counsel as directed by this Court. A bare perusal of the records including the discharge order dated 5.6.2002, is has already been noticed as well as the office order dated 30.9.2002 reinstating the petitioner into service, abundantly shows that the reinstatement order of the petitioner was issued invoking FR 54(A)3 which reads as follows : (3) If the dismissal removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by the court on the merits of the case; the period intervening between the date of dismissal removal or compulsory retirement, including the period of suspension preceding such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and the date of retirement shall be treated as duty for all purposes and he shall be paid the full pay and allowances for the period, to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be. 7. As per above provision of the Fundamental Rules it is clear that in case of reinstatement of Govt. servant whose dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement from service is set aside by the court on the merit of the case, the entire period from the date of his dismissal, etc, including suspension till the date of reinstatement shall be treated as on duty for all purposed and he shall be paid full pay and allowances for the period for which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, as in the instant case. In the case in hand the competent authority, being aware of the consequence of FR 54(A)(3), reinstated the petitioner by invoking the said provision. It can be, therefore, construed that the competent authority in reinstating the petitioner by specifically exercising the provision of FR 54(A)(3) accepted the court's verdict as being passed on merit. The petitioner is, thus, entitled to his full pay and allowance of the period on suspension. 8. On pointed asking on this point for further clarification, Mr. Sailo, learned Govt. It can be, therefore, construed that the competent authority in reinstating the petitioner by specifically exercising the provision of FR 54(A)(3) accepted the court's verdict as being passed on merit. The petitioner is, thus, entitled to his full pay and allowance of the period on suspension. 8. On pointed asking on this point for further clarification, Mr. Sailo, learned Govt. counsel, relying on the records itself, has contended that the record does not reveal that the authority by an inadvertent mistake or error passed the reinstatement order as per provision of FR 54(A)(3). Besides, it is also seen that there is nothing on record to indicate that any department proceeding whatsoever has ever been initiated at any point of time against the petitioner since the date of suspension in 1992 till his reinstatement in the year 2002. accepting the court's verdict as on acquittal against all charges leveled against him, the authority issued the reinstatement order depriving him of getting his due pay and allowances for the entire period of suspension. 9. Dr. Auva, learned Counsel for the petitioner, relying on the decision of this Court in a case reported in 2001 (2) GLT (Bidhan Ch. Dey v. State of Tripura and Ors.) has submitted that since the petitioner has been reinstated in view of the discharge from the criminal offence, he is entitled to get his full back wages on his reinstatement. 10. Mr. Sailo learned State counsel has also relied on the following decisions of the Apex Court : 1. State of U.P and Anr. v. Ved Pal Singh and Anr. reported in (1998) III LLJ 615 SC. 2. Krishnakant Raguhunath Bibhavnekar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in (1997) I LLJ 1190 SC . 3. Union of India and Anr. v. Biharilal Sidhana reported in [1997] 3 SCR 364. 11. On close perusal of the proposition of law laid down in those case stated above, this Court is of the view that the ratio laid down therein does not support the case of the respondents keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case in its totality. 12. v. Biharilal Sidhana reported in [1997] 3 SCR 364. 11. On close perusal of the proposition of law laid down in those case stated above, this Court is of the view that the ratio laid down therein does not support the case of the respondents keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case in its totality. 12. It is apparent on the fact of the reinstatement order referred to hereinabove that he was reinstated only in terms of FR 54(A)(3.) and as such there is no scope to deny the due pay and allowances to the petitioner from the date of his suspension till his reinstatement. 13. In view of what has been observed and indicated above, this Court accepts the contentions of the petitioner and the State-respondents are directed to release the petitioner's full pay and allowances from the period of his suspension till the reinstatement in accordance with law within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of this order. 14. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and stands allowed. No costs. Petition allowed