Judgment K.K. Trivedi, J.;- 1. The claim of the petitioner is that he was placed under suspension owing to a criminal prosecution. An order of dismissal was issued against him on account of conviction by the Court of law. Against the order of conviction, he preferred an appeal before this Court and the said appeal was decided on 31.07.2006 completely acquitting the petitioner. Since the conviction of the petitioner was set aside, on making an application, after considerable time, the petitioner was reinstated in service by the order of the competent authority. Even after reinstating him in service, the period of absence has not been regularized and the said period is not treated as the period spent on duty for the purposes of giving the higher pay scale on completion of requisite years of service, although representations were made by the petitioner. It is contended that similarly situated persons have been benefited by the orders of the competent authority but the said benefit is denied to him, therefore, he is required to approach this Court. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is contended that the case of the petitioner is not identical to the case of such persons, who have been given the benefit of regularization of the period of suspension. It is contended that there cannot be a parity in between two differently situated persons as in the circumstances in hand, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of regularization of the period of suspension. However, nothing has been said by the respondents whether they have ever passed any order in terms of the provisions of Fundamental Rule 54 for the purposes of regularizing the period of suspension. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and examined the record. 3. Undisputedly the petitioner was under suspension owing to the criminal prosecution and was removed from service resulting in his conviction in criminal case. Such a foundation was extinguished only when the appeal filed by the petitioner was decided by this Court on 31.07.2006 and the judgment of conviction was set aside. This being so, the case of the petitioner was to be considered in terms of the provisions of Fundamental Rule 54, whether the period of suspension was required to be regularized as duty period or not. This being so, the case of the petitioner was to be considered in terms of the provisions of Fundamental Rule 54, whether the period of suspension was required to be regularized as duty period or not. It is specifically provided under the aforesaid Rule that in case the competent authority comes to the conclusion that the period spent on suspension or termination is not to be treated as duty period for all purposes, a show cause notice is required to be issued to the concerned employee/officer. Only after affording an opportunity of hearing, the order is required to be passed in this respect. Nothing is indicated in the return whether such a procedure is followed or not. Only a bald statement is made that case of the petitioner may be distinguishable from the case of one Sudhir Kumar Khare, who was given the benefit of regularization of the period of suspension. Such a statement of the respondents cannot be accepted at all. Unless the period of suspension and the break in service on account of dismissal is regularized, it is not possible for the respondents to adjudge whether the petitioner would be entitled to grant of benefit of higher pay scale or not. 4. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010 , has categorically held that such period of absence from duty is to be regularized after the acquittal in the criminal case, by the competent authority taking into account the nature of charges, the allegations which were made and the order of acquittal passed by the Court. Since this has not been done, the respondents have not discharged their responsibility as is required under the provisions of Fundamental Rule 54. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of the period of suspension as also period of discontinuance in service on account of dismissal from the service because of his conviction, in the light of the decision taken by the respondents in the case of Sudhir Kumar Khare in respect of whom the order was issued on 24.07.2009. If the case of the petitioner is identical, similar benefit be extended to him within a period of four months from the date of passing of this order. If the case of the petitioner is identical, similar benefit be extended to him within a period of four months from the date of passing of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated herein above. However, there shall be no order as to cost.