Order : (DINESH MEHTA, J.) 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that the respondents are not giving him benefits of annual grade increments and selection grade. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have denied such benefits to the petitioner in wake of pendency of criminal case bearing No.1122/2011. He argued that regardless of the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted by the competent Court in the said criminal case by way of judgment and order dated 25.08.2022, the respondents have not conferred the due benefits to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that considering petitioner’s case, a direction was issued by this Court on 06.11.2024, whereby the respondents were directed to consider petitioner’s representation for grant of subsequent benefits including benefit of ACP and grant of promotion, if he is otherwise entitled in view of the fact that he has been acquitted by the competent Court in the said criminal case instituted against him. 4. Pursuant to the direction so given, the respondents have filed a reply and placed the order dated 04.03.2025 on record, whereby they have turned down petitioner’s request for conferment of the benefits on the ground that the State has preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal dated 25.08.2022, which is pending consideration. While rejecting petitioner’s representation, the State has placed reliance upon clause 6(i)(c) of Schedule VI of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 2017’). 5. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that rejection of petitioner’s representation is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. He argued that mere pendency of the appeal preferred by the State cannot be a reason enough to deny due benefits to the petitioner. 6. While submitting that there is huge backlog of cases before the Courts so far as criminal appeals are concerned, learned counsel argued that conclusion of the appeal will take substantial time and in case, the same is rejected, the State would definitely prefer revision petition and take further legal remedies thereagainst and in such process, the petitioner will be deprived of his benefits which he is legally entitled to. As the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, he is entitled to get all the benefits. 7. Mr. As the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, he is entitled to get all the benefits. 7. Mr. Rathore, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents on the other hand contended that if the petitioner feels aggrieved of the order dated 04.03.2025, whereby his representation has been rejected, he should lay a separate challenge to such an order. He further argued that the allegation against the petitioner was of embezzlement of huge amount of approximate Rs.3 lakhs and therefore, no indulgence be granted. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that clause 6(i)(c) of Schedule VI of the Rules of 2017 speaks of pendency of criminal case and in instant case, the same comes in currency because pendency of appeal is to be treated as pendency of criminal case. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. This Court is of the view that rejection of petitioner’s representation does not call for any specific challenge or requires amendment in the writ petition, because the same was passed pursuant to a direction issued by this Court on 06.11.2024. 11. This Court bonafidely believed that the respondents will take a pragmatic view/decision of the representation filed by the petitioner but for the dismay of the petitioner, it could not be done. 12. Since the order impugned dated 04.03.2025 has been passed during pendency of the writ petition that too pursuant to the order passed by this Court, no separate challenge is required. This Court, therefore, proceeds to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the order. 13. Admitting the merit of the order under consideration (04.03.2025), the respondents have relied upon clause 6(i)(c) of the Schedule VI of the Rules of 2017, which is reproduced hereunder:- “6(i) The financial upgradation would be on nonfunctional basis subject to satisfactory service record on the basis of which the concerned employee is eligible for promotion on higher post. For this purpose, the service record of the concerned employee of last continuous 7 years service is to be seen. In cases where the service record of last continuous 7 years is not available, the following procedure shall be adopted:- (a)… (b)… (c) * Any departmental or criminal proceeding may not be pending. * emphasis supplied 14. For this purpose, the service record of the concerned employee of last continuous 7 years service is to be seen. In cases where the service record of last continuous 7 years is not available, the following procedure shall be adopted:- (a)… (b)… (c) * Any departmental or criminal proceeding may not be pending. * emphasis supplied 14. A simple look at clause 6(i)(c) of the Schedule VI of the Rules of 2017 shows that the benefits of financial upgradation can be stopped, if any departmental or criminal proceedings is pending against an employee. 15. According to this Court, pendency of criminal proceedings should normally mean pendency of a criminal case; which in the present case has been decided by the competent Court vide its judgment and order dated 25.08.2022. 16. True it is, that an appeal is treated to be a continuation of proceedings. Such principle be treated for civil cases but not for the criminal cases inasmuch as the acquittal of the petitioner has led to his exoneration of all the charges which have been levelled against him. 17. When it comes to adjudication of an employee’s service rights, according to this Court, it would be ghastly iniquitous to consider “pendency of the appeal” filed by the State to be “pendency of criminal proceedings”. 18. It is a well known fact that decision of appeals and subsequent revision of appeals take long procedural time, when there is no end to this process as the State can file one petition after another. In case, where an employee has been acquitted, State is not justified in denying due benefits to him, in the guise of pendency of the appeal. 19. In the case of KC Sareen vs. C.B.I. reported in (2001) 6 SCC 584 , Hon’ble the Supreme Court has observed a similar legal position, the relevant part thereof is being reproduced hereinfra:- “When a public servant was found guilty of corruption after a judicial adjudicatory process conducted by a court of law, judiciousness demands that he should be treated as corrupt until he is exonerated by a superior court….to wait till the appeal, revision and other remedies are over, would not be advisable since it would mean continuing in service a person who has been convicted of a serious offence by a criminal court.” 20. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. 21. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. 21. The order dated 04.03.2025 (Annexure-R/1) rejecting petitioner’s representation is hereby quashed and set aside. 22. The respondents are directed to confer all the due benefits to the petitioner consequent to his order of acquittal as if no criminal proceedings are pending against him. 23. It shall be required of the petitioner to furnish an undertaking before the respondent No.3 to the effect that in case, appeal filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 25.08.2022 is allowed and the petitioner is convicted for the alleged offences, he shall restitute all the benefits, which have been granted to him, consequent to the order instant. 24. It will be required of the petitioner to furnish a copy of the undertaking for maintaining the record of this case within a period of 15 days from today. Only upon furnishing of undertaking, petitioner’s case for grant of due benefits shall be considered. 25. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.