JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.:- The petitioner, who had remained under suspension and out of service on account of his conviction for a criminal offence, which ultimately ended in his acquittal and reinstatement, has filed this writ petition, asking for benefits for the period, which have been denied to him. The petitioner would claim that he is entitled to full financial benefits for the period from 25.10.2000 to 17.2.2010. 2. Having been appointed as a Conductor on 1.12.1982, the petitioner was placed under suspension for his involvement in a criminal case on 28.4.1998. He, however, was reinstated on 29.10.1999 during the pendency of criminal case. Later, he was convicted for various offences, including under Section 302 IPC, on 26.8.2000. On the basis of his conviction, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 25.10.2000. The petitioner had appealed against his conviction and he was acquitted by this Court on 22.7.2009. Once he was not being reinstated, he filed a Civil Writ Petition 15685 of 2009, which was disposed of on 13.10.2009 with a direction to the respondents to decide his demand notice within three months. The petitioner has now been reinstated on 23.2.2010. He has now filed this writ petition to pray that upon his acquittal, he is entitled to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. 3. The State has filed reply to the writ petition to oppose the prayer made by the petitioner. The respondents would state that the financial benefits can not be given to him for the period he had remained out of job. Reliance is placed on Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore Vs. The Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, 1997 (1) SLR 14 in support of the plea. 4. This issue was also considered by this Court in CWP No.19079 of 2009 (Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others) decided on June 30, 2010. After making reference to the case of Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore (supra), the Court has held that full pay and allowances are not be allowed in each and every case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore (Supra) has observed as under:- “It was his conduct of involving himself in the crime that was taken into account for his not being in service of the respondent. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore (Supra) has observed as under:- “It was his conduct of involving himself in the crime that was taken into account for his not being in service of the respondent. Consequent upon his acquittal, he is entitled to reinstatement for the reason that his service was terminated on the basis of the conviction by operation of proviso to the statutory rules applicable to the situation. The question of back wages would be considered only if the respondents have taken action by way of disciplinary proceedings and the action was found to be unsustainable in law and he was unlawfully prevented from discharging the duties. In that context, his conduct becomes relevant. Each case requires to be considered in his own backdrops. In this case, since the petitioner had involved himself in a crime, though he was later acquitted, he had disabled himself from rendering the service on account of conviction and incarceration in jail. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to payment of back wages. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have not committed any error of law warranting interference.” Reference here may also be made to Note 9 below Rule 7.3(2) of C.S.R. Volume 1 Part I, which reads as under:- “Where a Government employee under suspension is acquitted by a Court of Law and the order reinstating him is passed some time after the date of acquittal, full pay and allowances have to be paid from the date of acquittal to the date of re-joining duty and the period counted as duty for all purposes whereas for the period from the date of suspension/removal/dismissal to the date of acquittal he is to be allowed pay and allowances as directed by competent authority under sub rule (2) or sub rule (3) of this rule and the period treated as duty or non-duty under sub rule (4) or sub rule (5) of this rule, as the case may be.” It can accordingly be observed that the competent authority, thus, has a discretion to regulate the period of suspension from the date of suspension to the date of acquittal and the pay and the allowances for this period has to be allowed or denied by the competent authority in its discretion having regard to the facts of each case. In a case like this, where an employee gets involved in criminal offence and, thus, remains away from duty on account of his suspension or on account of undergoing imprisonment, which as a consequence is imposed upon him, it would not be very appropriate and fair to allow pay and allowances for the period for which the department has no responsibility. This would be the ratio of law, as would emerge from Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore (supra). Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for a period when he was convicted to the date of his acquittal will have to be considered by the concerned competent authority in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court. However, the petitioner would be entitled to pay and allowances for the period from the date of his acquittal to the date of his reinstatement as that period is clearly attributable to the action of the respondents in taking time to reinstate him. The petitioner is held entitled to the pay and allowances for this period. For the remaining period, the petitioner may make a representation and the same would be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law and the provisions of Rule 7.5 of C.S.R. Volume I, Part I, as interpreted by this Court. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. -------------------