JUDGMENT : Deepak Roshan, J. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the dismissal order dated 10/14.07.2004 and further direction upon the respondent-authorities especially respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to immediately and forthwith make payment of wages from 22.07.2004 to 31.08.2004, amount of leave sick encashment, gratuity and transport cost etc. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that since he was convicted in one criminal case being R.C. No. 21(A)/1986, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. (respondent No. 2) has dismissed him from service. However, even after acquittal of the petitioner by this Court in Criminal Appeal (S.J.). No. 1319 of 2003, by judgment dated 23.11.2012, the monetary benefits have not been given to him. He further contended that admittedly, no departmental proceeding was initiated, inasmuch as, there was no charge-sheet issued, no enquiry was conducted and simply on the basis of order of conviction, he has been dismissed from service on 10/14.07.2004 and thereafter, he retired on 31.08.2004 on attaining the age of superannuation. 3. However, when the criminal appeal preferred by the petitioner before this Court was allowed and he was acquitted in criminal case, the petitioner made representation before the Director (Personnel), WCL, Nagpur, however, still his grievance has not been redressed. Accordingly, learned counsel submits that necessary orders be passed so that the services of the petitioner be regularized and he may get the monetary benefits in accordance with law and applicable rules and regulations of the respondent-CIL. 4. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 raises a preliminary objection on two counts: i) Representation sent by the petitioner was before the Director (Personnel), WCL, Nagpur, who is not a competent authority. ii) The dismissal order passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, CIL, when he was posted at W.C.L. Nagpur, therefore, since the instant matter arises out of a dismissal order issued by WCL, Nagpur, the instant application is not maintainable on the point of territorial jurisdiction. 5. ii) The dismissal order passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, CIL, when he was posted at W.C.L. Nagpur, therefore, since the instant matter arises out of a dismissal order issued by WCL, Nagpur, the instant application is not maintainable on the point of territorial jurisdiction. 5. In reply to the same, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that instant writ application may be disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd., so that he shall look into the matter that there was no charge-sheet issued in this case and the petitioner was dismissed only on the ground of conviction by the competent Court of Criminal jurisdiction and no formal proceeding ever conducted; as such, since petitioner has already been acquitted by this Court, a positive decision may be taken by the respondents. 6. Having regard to the above submissions; the facts are admitted, inasmuch as, when the petitioner was dismissed from service, he was posted at WCL Nagpur and only the criminal case which was registered in which the petitioner was also one of the accused, was within the territorial jurisdiction of Jharkhand and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed the order of acquittal in the said criminal case as referred herein above. 7. Accordingly, interest of justice would suffice by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Chairman-cum-Managing Director for ventilating his grievances, inasmuch as, the petitioner is a very old person and relegating him at this stage to a different Court for redressal of grievance would not serve interest of justice. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file representation before the respondent No. 2, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd., as early as possible. The moment respondent No. 2 will receive the representation of the petitioner, he shall take a decision in the matter, without being prejudiced by the earlier order of termination, in accordance with applicable Rules and Regulations of the respondent-Organization, keeping in mind that there was no disciplinary proceeding in this case and the petitioner was dismissed only on the ground of conviction in criminal case, which was subsequently set aside by this Court. 9. Since the petitioner is very old, the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of representation of the petitioner. 10. 9. Since the petitioner is very old, the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of representation of the petitioner. 10. It goes without saying that while passing the order, respondent No. 2 shall bear in mind that since the petitioner has not worked for the relevant period and he was definitely behind the custody or busy in the criminal case; as such, he would not be entitled for any back wages from the date of termination till the date of superannuation. However, his services may not be treated as break in service in the light of observation made herein above. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.