JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed with the respondent-Department as a Class-IV Employee on 01.06.1965 and was made permanent on the aforesaid post by order dated 24.10.1972. While the petitioner was serving with the respondents, he was arrested for an offence under Section 302 IPC on 18.10.1977 and was consequently placed under suspension on 22.10.1977. The petitioner was convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar and on account of such conviction, his services were terminated by order dated 31.08.1978 w.e.f. 31.05.1978. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction was rejected by the High Court, however, on approaching Supreme Court, by Judgment dated 25.04.2000, the conviction of the appellant under Section 120-B read with Section 302 IPC was set aside and he was acquitted of all the charges. Where after, the petitioner approached the respondents for reinstatement with consequential benefits, which was apparently not exceeded to by the respondents, for which, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as the sole reason for termination of petitioner's service has been his conviction in a criminal case for an offence under Section 302 IPC, which conviction stands set aside by judgment of Supreme Court, the only consequence would be that the respondents have to reinstate the petitioner with consequential benefits. It was also submitted that as the petitioner has already crossed the age of superannuation, the respondents may be directed to be pay the pensionary & retiral benefits treating the petitioner in service since the date of his termination. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that though it is true that conviction of the petitioner, which formed the basis for his termination stands set aside by judgment of Supreme Court, there have been other convictions also of the petitioner for different offences. Reference thereof has been given in communication (Annex.-R/1) dated 18.10.2002 from the Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar, wherein there is reference of conviction in two matters and one criminal matter pending against the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for being reinstated back in service. 5. Without prejudice to the above submissions, it was submitted that even if the petitioner was to succeed, he was not entitled to grant of any back-wages. 5. Without prejudice to the above submissions, it was submitted that even if the petitioner was to succeed, he was not entitled to grant of any back-wages. Reliance was placed on judgment of Supreme Court in Baldev Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (2005) 8 SCC 747 . 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. A bare look at the termination order (Annex.-3) reveals that only ground of termination has been petitioner's conviction by the criminal court. Once the conviction stands set aside by judgment of Supreme Court, the natural consequence would be the setting aside of the termination and reinstatement of the petitioner with effect from the date of his termination. 8. So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents are concerned, a look at the communication (Annex.-R/1) indicates that the so called convictions pertained to orders dated 15.07.1995, 23.05.1989 and outcome of one more criminal case registered against the petitioner is not known. Both the convictions and the case registered against the petitioner are subsequent to the petitioner's termination and, therefore, there is no question of the respondents taking any action on account of such convictions against the petitioner, whose services had already been terminated and as the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement, once he is reinstated, it would be open for the respondents to take action based on the convictions as indicated in the communication (Annex.-R/1), if permissible under law. 9. Further there is substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents regarding grant of back-wages. Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh (supra) while considering a similar nature issue opined as under:- "7. As the factual position noted clearly indicates, the appellant was not in actual service for the period he was in custody. Merely because there has been an acquittal does not automatically entitle him to get salary for the period concerned. This is more so, on the logic of no work no pay. It is to be noted that the appellant was terminated from service because of the conviction. Effect of the same does not get diluted because of subsequent acquittal for the purpose of counting service. The aforesaid position was clearly stated in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Supdt. Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board ." 10. It is to be noted that the appellant was terminated from service because of the conviction. Effect of the same does not get diluted because of subsequent acquittal for the purpose of counting service. The aforesaid position was clearly stated in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Supdt. Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board ." 10. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed. The petitioner is entitled for reinstatement back in service from the date of his termination i.e. with effect from 31.05.1978 with all consequential benefits i.e. the retiral and pensionary benefits. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to payment of any back-wages for the period he has not served with the respondents. 11. It will be open for the respondents to take action against the petitioner for the convictions subsequent to his termination, once he is reinstated, if permissible under law. 12. The consequential action be taken by the respondents within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the respondents.Petition partly allowed. *******