JUDGMENT : PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. 1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to treat the appointment as continuity in service by giving all service benefits to which he is entitled to; and further prayer has been made for quashing the order of dismissal as contained in letter dated 10.01.2005 (Annexure-4 to the amended writ petition) passed in terms of provisions of Clause 39 of the Companies Standing Orders; and for quashing of the order dated 20.04.2005 (Annexure-5 to the amended writ petition) whereby the departmental appeal has been rejected by the appellate authority & Chairman, SAIL; and for quashing of the letter dated 11.04.2008 whereby the representation dated 25.02.2008 filed by the petitioner has been rejected; and for quashing of the modification order dated 29.07.2008 and the petitioner has further prayed for grant of all consequential reliefs. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in brief, as has been disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner was initially appointed on 09.10.1971 on the post of ‘Khalasi’ in Water Supply Department. Subsequently he was promoted on the post of Senior Technician-cum-Operative in Bokaro Steel Plant under SAIL. While continuing as such a Complaint Case No.386 of 1998 (Tr. Case No.918 of 2004) was instituted against the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 386 and 379 of the I.P.C. Upon trial, the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 18.10.2004 under Section 386 IPC and was sentenced one year simple imprisonment and was also convicted and sentenced under Section 379 IPC for 1 year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in case of default in payment of said fine, a further S.I of two months and both the sentences were to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.10.2004, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.99 of 2004 and his conviction under Section 386 I.P.C was set aside, however, the conviction under Section 379 IPC was upheld by the appellate court vide judgment dated 30.11.2005. However, the petitioner was directed to be released after due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, upon execution of Probation Bond of his good conduct for a period of two years. However, the petitioner was directed to be released after due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, upon execution of Probation Bond of his good conduct for a period of two years. Thereafter the petitioner being aggrieved by the Criminal Appeal No.99 of 2004 preferred Criminal Revision No.1180 of 2005 which was disposed of vide order dated 22.11.2007 whereunder the petitioner was allowed the benefit under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, whereunder the disqualification attached to conviction for an offence was removed by the High Court of Jharkhand. Due to conviction vide judgment dated 18.10.2004 in Complaint Case No.386 of 1998 (Tr. Case No.918 of 2004) the petitioner was dismissed from services vide order dated 10.01.2005. Thereafter the petitioner filed appeal before the authority which was rejected vide order dated 20.04.2005 by the appellate authority and Chairman, SAIL. After the order passed in the criminal case the petitioner appeared before the respondents, requesting for appointment with continuity in services. However, quite surprisingly the petitioner received a letter dated 05.02.2008 with regard to re-appointment order in the post of Senior Technician-cum-Operative in Bokaro Steel Plant in the basic pay scale in S-9 Grade. In pursuance to the said appointment order the petitioner submitted his joining. Being aggrieved by the re-appointment order, the petitioner submitted representation before the concerned authority vide Annexure-8 to the writ application, which has been rejected on 11.04.2008 vide Annexure-9 to the writ application. Thereafter, the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2008 and vide notification dated 29.07.2008, the period between 11.01.2005 to 07.02.2008 has been treated as break in service and it has been held that the petitioner is entitled for gratuity for 8 months, 24 days only and his earlier service period of 33 years, 03 months and 01 days has not been included for calculation of said gratuity as evident from Annexures-10 and 11 of the writ application. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders, the petitioner left with no alternative has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing has strenuously urged that the modification order dated 29.07.2008 (vide Annexure-11 to the amended writ application) has not been implemented in letter and spirit. 3. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing has strenuously urged that the modification order dated 29.07.2008 (vide Annexure-11 to the amended writ application) has not been implemented in letter and spirit. Learned counsel further submits that by virtue of the re-appointment order, the petitioner has been deprived of past services rendered by him, which smacks of mala fide and arbitrary exercise of power by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing has also referred to order dated 30.11.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No.99 of 2004 whereby the petitioner has been released on Probation for a period of two years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the order dated 22.11.2007 passed in Criminal Revision No.1180 of 2005 wherein this Court has been pleased to hold that the finding of the appellate court will in no way attach any disqualification to the future of the petitioner under Section 12 of the provisions of the Offenders Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 76 (U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. vs. Rajendra Bahadur Srivastava & Anr.). 5. Counter affidavit to the amended writ petition dated 17.08.2017 has been filed by the respondents wherein it has been submitted that after the order passed in the criminal case the petitioner was reappointed in SAIL/BSL on 08.02.2008 as Sr. Technician-cum-Operative. The petitioner joined the company on the terms and conditions mentioned in the order. It was clearly mentioned at point no.6 of the order that if the terms and conditions were acceptable to the petitioner, he was advised to report to duty and after the acceptance of the terms and conditions the petitioner can join his duties. Accordingly, acceptance was given and petitioner joined the duty. It has further been submitted that service period against the petitioner is 33 years 03 months 01 day, and after reappointment the service period is 8 months 24 days. As per the office order dated 29.07.2008 the gratuity is to be counted apart from the period mentioned in separate order due to break in service from 11.01.2005 to 07.02.2008. 6. It has further been submitted that service period against the petitioner is 33 years 03 months 01 day, and after reappointment the service period is 8 months 24 days. As per the office order dated 29.07.2008 the gratuity is to be counted apart from the period mentioned in separate order due to break in service from 11.01.2005 to 07.02.2008. 6. Supplementary counter affidavit dated 26.04.2018 has been filed by the respondents, wherein it has been submitted that provident fund has been paid to the petitioner on 07.11.2008 amounting to Rs.9,75,850/- and SESBF of Rs.75,882/- has already been paid to the petitioner by the respondent. It is further stated that so far second staff no.789042 is concerned, payment of P.F and SESBF has already been paid to the petitioner on 30.10.2008 amounting to Rs.40,148/- and Rs.3362/- respectively as per Annexure-A to the said affidavit. It has further been submitted that there are two staff numbers of the petitioner that is 122367 and 789042. In the first staff number petitioner was dismissed from the service of the respondent company so only fifty percent of gratuity amount i.e Rs.1,48,460/- was payable to the petitioner (50% of Rs.296918/-) and the second staff number i.e. 789042, the length of service is less than 5 years hence petitioner is not eligible for gratuity. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents apart from the submissions made in the counter affidavit has referred to the SAIL Gratuity Rules, more particularly Rule-3.2.1(b), which reads as under: 3.2.1(b) The gratuity shall be admissible to an employee only to the extent of 50% of the amount to which he is entitled under the rules, whose services are terminated for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency after five years of qualifying service. The Company will have the right to deduct from Gratuity payable to an employee who has been discharged or dismissed for misconduct such amount as might be considered as loss caused due to misconduct of the employee. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has also referred to Clause-6 of the reappointment order dated 05.02.2008 (Annexure-6 to the writ application) whereby the petitioner was bound by the terms and conditions as mentioned in the said order. 9. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has also referred to Clause-6 of the reappointment order dated 05.02.2008 (Annexure-6 to the writ application) whereby the petitioner was bound by the terms and conditions as mentioned in the said order. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner with regard to post retirement benefits have been redressed as disclosed from the counter affidavit dated 17.08.2017 and supplementary counter affidavit dated 26.04.2018. As per the SAIL Gratuity Rules, the mode of payment of gratuity has been enshrined in Clause 3.2.1(b) which is relevant to the instant case. Since the payment of gratuity has already been made as per the said clause of the gratuity rules meant for Steel Authority of India employees, the grievance of the petitioner appears to have been redressed. 10. With regard to the prayer of the petitioner to treat the order of reappointment dated 05.02.2008, vide Annexure-6, as reinstatement in service so as to treat the period from 11.01.2005 to 07.02.2008 to be continuity in service instead of break in service, cannot be acceptable in view of the terms and conditions as has been mentioned in Clause-6 of the said re-appointment order and the petitioner having accepted the terms and conditions is estopped to turn around and challenge the said terms and conditions afterwards. Since the petitioner has accepted the said terms and conditions without any demur, subsequently prevaricating stand of summersault on the part of the petitioner would not be of any help to derive any undue benefits. 11. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders do not warrant any interference and the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Petition dismissed.