JUDGMENT BISWANATH RATH, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the employee petitioner in its original form challenging his dismissal from service of the School w.e.f. 27.09.1994 communicated by way of a publication dated 26.05.1996 vide Annexure-13 as well as Annexure-15. While the petitioner sought for a direction for treating him to be continuing in service till his superannuation and release of consequential financial benefits as well as pensionary benefits, upon death of the original petitioner during pendency of the litigation, the original petitioner has been substituted by his legal heirs i.e. his wife and children amending the prayer by way of addition to the extent of grant of family pension to the petitioner no.1 (a) while maintaining all other claims made in the writ petition 2. Short background involved in the case is that on 20.08.1973 Bhagirathi Mishra the original petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the Orissa Police High School, Tulsipur, Cuttack. This institution was an Aided Educational Institution under Section 3(b) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 and was in receipt of grant in aid. On 15.12.1979 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk. On 18.07.1986 the original petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 14.7.1975 on the basis of a decision of the Managing Committee of the School on the alleged involvement of the original petitioner in a criminal case. On 20.03.1989 the original petitioner was reinstated in service pending disposal of the criminal proceeding/inquiry against him. On 14.8.1990 the original petitioner was once again placed under suspension vide Annexure- 4. For not being paid subsistence allowance, the original petitioner was constrained to file O.J.C. no.1838 of 1991, followed with a contempt application for noncompliance of the direction of this Court vide Ori. Criminal Misc. Case No.227/1991. In the meantime, on 27.9.1994 by the judgment of the A.C.J.M.(Spl.) Cuttack in G.R. Case No.2137/1986, U/s.408 of I.P.C., G.R. Case No.2138/1986, U/s.408 of I.P.C. and G.R. Case No.1650/1984, U/s.408 of I.P.C. the original petitioner was convicted. 3. Challenging the convictions in the three above cases, the original petitioner preferred three criminal appeals vide Cr. Appeal No.141/1994, Crl. Appeal No.142/1994 and Crl. Appeal No.143/1994. 3. Challenging the convictions in the three above cases, the original petitioner preferred three criminal appeals vide Cr. Appeal No.141/1994, Crl. Appeal No.142/1994 and Crl. Appeal No.143/1994. Based on the grant of stay of the suspension of the conviction as well as sentences therein, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Managing Committee on 20.11.1994 praying therein to continue in serving along with release of unpaid subsistence allowances. Based on the conviction order, by the resolution of the Managing Committee, the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from the date of judgment i.e. 27.9.1994. On the premises that the petitioner was not prepared to receive dismissal order, the dismissal order as well as the resolution were all published in newspaper. 4. Challenging the order of dismissal, the original petitioner filed this writ petition before this Court on 2.04.1996. During pendency of the writ petition, the criminal appeal no.142/1994 though was allowed with an order of acquittal in favour of the original petitioner but the criminal appeal no.141/1994 and 143/1994 were dismissed. The original petitioner preferred criminal revision vide Criminal Revision No.206/1996 and Criminal Revision No.205/1996 in this Court. In the meantime, this Court by its judgment while allowing both the criminal revisions at the instance of the original petitioner acquitted the original petitioner in both the cases. Criminal revision No.206/1996 was allowed on 16.02.2017 whereas the Criminal Revision No.205/1996 was allowed on 16.3.2017, all taking place during pendency of the writ petition. Reading of the averments made in the writ petition, this Court observes, the writ petition bears description up to entertaining the criminal revisions by this Court, but however, from the documents appended to the further affidavit by the petitioner as well as the amendment of the writ petition, it appears, the fact of acquittal of the original petitioner from the criminal charges vide Criminal Revision nos.205/1996 & 206/1996 have all been brought to the fold of the pleadings by way of amendment. Shri Nanda, Learned counsel for the legal heirs of the original petitioner after his death, taking reliance of the acquittal of the original petitioner from all the three charges involving three criminal proceedings submitted that since the reason of dismissal of the original petitioner was purely based on the conviction of the original petitioner in criminal cases and for the acquittal of the original petitioner in the meantime in the criminal cases, it will be presumed that there was no criminal case involving the original petitioner at any point of time and as a consequence, the original petitioner being an employee of the School would be deemed to be continuing in service and is also entitled to all statutory benefits on the premises of continuance of the original petitioner in the service till he attended the age of superannuation. 5. It is stated here that the original petitioner died on 12.8.1999, though his date of superannuation in the natural course would have been 30.05.2012. In the meantime, the School in question having been taken over by the Government, becomes a Government School w.e.f. 16.1.1996. It is, in the above premises, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the entire service of the original petitioner was falling under the Managing Committee of the School on the date of attainment of superannuation of the original petitioner on 30.05.2012 and the School having been taken over w.e.f.16.1.1996, in the minimum, the original petitioner is entitled to the benefits following the provisions involving The Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter in short called as “The Rules, 1974) as well as the provisions contained in The Orissa Aided Educational Institutions’ Employees Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981 (hereinafter in short called as “The Rules, 1981). 6. Shri D. Mohapatra, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department while opposing the stand taken by the petitioners raised objection on the maintainability of the writ petition on the premises that the School involved having been taken over by the State Government in the meantime, no direction involving the original petitioner is possible to be given in such matters and the legal heirs of the original petitioner are required to approach the competent authority deciding such issues involving the Government Schools. 7. 7. Referring to a Full Bench Decision in the case of Smt. Rama Panigrahi versus State of Orissa & others as reported in (2003) 95 CLT 724 (F.B), Shri D. Mohapatra, learned Standing Counsel for the School & Mass Education Department submitted that for the decision involving the above reported case, this writ petition is not maintainable. 8. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, looking to the submission of both the sides, this Court finds, there is no dispute that the original petitioner was terminated from service on account of his involvement in the criminal proceedings initiated at the particular point of time while he was continuing in the service in the School involved. There also remains no dispute that the original petitioner has been acquitted from all the three cases, may be in appeal stages or revision stage. The further admitted fact involved here is that had the original petitioner survived, his date of retirement would have been 30.5.2012, but unfortunately, the original petitioner has died on 12.8.1999. Looking to the objection of the learned Standing Counsel for the School & Mass Education Department, this Court before entering into the merit of the case, likes to first deal with the question of maintainability of the writ petition. Taking into account the background involved herein, the date of termination of the original petitioner and the judgment in acquittal of the original petitioner, there remains no doubt that had there been no criminal cases against the original petitioner, the original petitioner would have been allowed to continue at least till his date of death on 12.8.1999. It is at this stage of the matter, this Court finds from the materials available on record that the School involving the original petitioner was taken over by the State Government on 17.9.1996, therefore, on 12.8.1999 i.e. on the date of death of the petitioner the School was an aided educational institution. It is at this stage on perusal of the decision involving (2003) 95 CLT 724(F.B) this Court finds, for the difference in facts, this decision has no application to the case at hand and for the discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is still maintainable. It is at this stage on perusal of the decision involving (2003) 95 CLT 724(F.B) this Court finds, for the difference in facts, this decision has no application to the case at hand and for the discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is still maintainable. Here, taking into account a circular of the Government of Orissa in School & Mass Education Department dated 17.9.2016, this Court finds, the circular involves the course on taking over of the Management on Non-Government fully aided High Schools by Government-Service conditions of the employees. This is a circular issued also involving the Police High School, Tulsipur, Cuttack but dealing with the employees so far as their retirement benefits is concerned on the taking over of the School. It is made clear that employees of such taken over High Schools shall be governed under two sets of rules. Pension and other terminal benefits admissible to State Government servants shall be applicable to such employees for the period of their service rendered under the State Government i.e. with effect from the date of taking over. Such period shall be governed under the provisions of the OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992. Service period rendered in privately managed aided educational institutions prior to the date of taken over to Government fold shall be governed under the provisions of the Odisha Aided Educational Institutions Employees’ Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981. Such provision shall be applicable to the employees who have joined in service prior to 1.1.2005. Looking to the provisions contained in Clause 2.3 of the Resolution dated 17.9.2016, this Court finds, taking into account the whole background involving the case at hand, the Bhagirathi Mishra is entitled to the benefits of the Rules, 1981. 9. Now coming to deal with merit of the case, on perusal of the charges involving the criminal cases, this Court finds, all the criminal cases were instituted at the instance of the Managing Committee of the School on the premises of misappropriation etc. of the Institution money and for the acquittal of the original petitioner Bhagirathi Mishra in all the criminal cases, it appears, said Bhagirathi Mishra, has been falsely implicated in all the criminal cases. It is here, keeping in view the claims made in the writ petition, this Court, hereinabove, has already taken note of the acquittal of the original petitioner from all the three criminal cases initiated against him. It is here, keeping in view the claims made in the writ petition, this Court, hereinabove, has already taken note of the acquittal of the original petitioner from all the three criminal cases initiated against him. Therefore, it is presumed that there was no criminal case involving the original petitioner. This Court further observes that had there been no criminal case initiated involving the original petitioner, the original petitioner would have been continuing in service at least till his death on 12.8.1999. Looking to the provision contained in the Rules, 1974 particularly the provision at Chapter VI Rule 24 of the Rule 1974, this Court finds, the School authority had the power to impose penalty on an employee on the ground of conduct, which laid to his conviction on a criminal charge, but keeping in view the acquittal of the original petitioner in the criminal cases, this Court finds, the ground for taking action on the employee did not remain. It is, at this stage, reading the provisions in Rules, 1981, this Court finds, an employee will be eligible for gratuity provided he has a qualifying service up to his date of retirement of 5 years or more but less than 10 years, besides this, the employees is also eligible to pension, if he has completed not less than 10 years of qualifying services up to the date of his retirement, but maximum period of qualifying service to be taken into account for the purpose of pension shall not exceed three years and an employee will be entitled to pension 50% of the last month pay. For the petitioner’s acquittal in all the criminal cases and this being the sole reason of termination, the reason having been lost its force for the acquittal of the original petitioner in all the three criminal cases, the original petitioner would be deemed to be continuing in service at least till 12.8.1999 on which date Bhagirath Mishra died. In the case of Man Singh versus State of Rajasthan as reported in 1998(1)WLC(Raj.)445 where the Court has ruled that where the termination order had been passed on the ground that the employee therein stood convicted by the criminal court and no departmental enquiry had ever been held, in the event of acquittal in the Criminal Case, the Court ruled as the ground of termination had disappeared, the employee was entitled for reinstatement. Considering that the original petitioner was terminated from service on 27.9.1994 and died on 12.8.1999, but however, he has not worked for all these period, but keeping in view that he has been prevented to work for no fault of him, the original petitioner would be entitled at the rate minimum 75% of the back wages for the period from 27.9.1994 up to 12.8.1999. So far as the pensionary benefits to the original petitioner is concerned, since the original petitioner has died prematurely, this Court therefore, while allowing the writ petition, directs the Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Department of School & Mass Education, Government of Odisha to treat the original petitioner-Bhagirathi Mishra, the employee of the Orissa Police High School, Tulsipur to have been continuing in service from 27.9.1994 to till 12.8.1999 and while releasing back wages in favour of his wife as directed hereinabove with interest @ 6%, looking to the provision contained in the Subrules 1& 2 of Rule 8, the wife of the original petitioner would also be entitled to gratuity and the family pension as prescribed therein. Accordingly, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary is also directed to compute the gratuity and the Family pension aspect and make the wife of the original petitioner entitled to family pension following the provisions contained in the Sub-rule-2(b) of the Rule 8 treating the Bhagaban Mishra (the original petitioner) died on 12.8.1999 and releasing the family pension in favour of the petitioner no.1(A) in terms of the provision contained in Rule 1981 within two months at the maximum. This Court here clarifies that the arrear salary, admissible gratuity and the arrear of family pension will all be released in favour of the petitioner no.1(A) along with interest @6% per annum all through but within a period of two months at the maximum. 10. The writ petition succeeds. No cost. Petition succeeds.