(1) WP. 2802.2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2802 OF 2005 Arjun Trimbak Bhagat died through his LR Sandeep Arjun Bhagat PETITIONER VERSUS Maharahstra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Mumbai and anr. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. A.D. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. P.B. Paithankar, Advocate for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2. ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 6TH JULY, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. The petitioner is the son of one Arjun Trimbak Bhagat, who was an employee of the respondent-Company. The employee expired on 2.9.2005. Since then, the petitioner Sandeep has obtained an order from the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Jalgaon in Regular Civil Suit no. 70 of 2007, declaring that he is the only legal heir of Arjun Trimbak Bhagat. (2) WP. 2802.2005 2. In the present Petition, the claim of the petitioner is that his father's service during the period between 18.3.1995 and 9.12.2001 should be regularized and he should be paid all consequential benefits. 3. It appears that the petitioner's father was arrested in respect of the death of his mother on 17.6.1995. The Sessions Court convicted him, however, he was acquitted by this Court by judgment and order dated 8.9.2001. The petitioner's father was in jail continuously from 17.6.1995 till he was acquitted by the judgement of this Court. Thereafter, he approached the respondent for reinstatement in accordance with the service rules applicable. An order was issued on 10.12.2001 by the respondent, reinstating the employee in service. 4. The issue whether the petitioner's father would be entitled to wages during the aforesaid period would be governed by the service rules applicable to employees of the erstwhile company of M.S.E.B., which was tri-furcated into three (3) WP. 2802.2005 establishments, one of which is the respondent-the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. We have examined the service regulations and we do not find any regulation indicating that an employee who is reinstated after acquittal is entitled to wages for that period. In fact, service regulation 10-A which has been inserted in the regulations indicates that if an employee is acquitted by an appellate Court, he must be reinstated in service. But, he would not be eligible for any payment from the date of termination of service to the date of reinstatement in service on the principle of "no work no pay". He would be eligible for restoration of his seniority and other terminal benefits. 5. We have been informed that the terminal benefits available to the petitioner on account of the death of his father, have not been paid to him as there was a dispute as to whether he was the only legal heir of his deceased father. Now that dispute has been resolved due to the aforesaid judgement of Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Jalgaon in Regular (4) WP. 2802.2005 Civil Suit no. 70 of 2007, the petitioner would be entitled to all the terminal benefits. Obviously, these terminal benefits would have to be paid to the petitioner on the basis that the services of his father were continuous and that he had been reinstated with continuity of service by the order dated 10.12.2001. 6. Accordingly, the Petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to approach the respondents within two weeks from today for all the terminal benefits and other dues payable to his deceased father. The respondents shall clear all dues payable to the petitioner within four (4) weeks thereafter. Sd/- Sd/- [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] arp