1..... W.A. No. 944 of 2011 W.A. No. 1244 of 2010 12.10.2011 Shri Hemant Shrivastava, Counsel for the appellant. Shri S.K. Rao, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent. I.A.11133/11 for condonation of delay. There is delay of 292 days in filing this appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection if the delay is condoned. In view of the aforesaid, delay in filing this appeal is condoned. I.A. is finally disposed of. Respondent Central Bank of India has also preferred writ appeal against the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge which is registered as W.A.1244 of 2010 and considering the controversy involved in this case, both the matters are heard analogously. The facts of the case are that a criminal case under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was filed against Rajesh Kumar Gupta before the Special Judge, Sagar registered as Special Case No. 3/95. The Special Judge, Sagar after the trial convicted him for three years R.I. and fine of Rs.2000/-. The judgment of conviction was subject matter of Criminal Appeal No.1340/97 which was decided on 7.5.2008 and Rajesh Kumar was acquitted by this Court. After acquittal he submitted his joining on 30.9.2008 before the respondent but his joining was not accepted. Ultimately Rajesh Kumar filed a writ petition No.12992/09 (S) before this Court for seeking directions of this court for his reinstatement. The learned Single Judge of this 2..... W.A. No. 944 of 2011 W.A. No. 1244 of 2010 12.10.2011 Court relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in South Bengal State Transport Corpn. vs. Sapan Kumar Mitra and others [(2006) 2 SCC 584], directed the Bank to reinstate him. So far as the salary for the intervening period is concerned, learned Single Judge directed that it shall be subject to final out come of the enquiry which may be initiated against Rajesh Kumar by the Bank. The employee aggrieved by this part of the order. in respect of non allowing the salary for the period since 7.5.2008, has filed writ appeal while the Bank has filed a writ appeal challenging the order passed by the Single Bench directing reinstatement of the employee. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the parties submitted that the dispute remains only in respect of the salary from the date of acquittal till the joining of the employee as the Bank has accepted the verdict of the Court and permitted the joining of the employee on 26.10.2010. Learned counsel for the appellant initially submitted that the appellant is entitled for the salary since 7.5.2008, the date on which the employee is acquitted by the High Court while the argument of Shri Rao, learned counsel for respondent/Bank was that the employee was entitled for the salary since 26.10.2010, the date on which the employee has in fact joined the services but after arguing the matter, both the parties have agreed that they would be satisfied if the employee is allowed salary since 30.9.2008, the date on which he submitted his joining in the Bank. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is finally dispose of in 3..... W.A. No. 944 of 2011 W.A. No. 1244 of 2010 12.10.2011 terms of the aforesaid. So far as the period during which Rajesh Kumar Gupta remained suspended and ultimately his services were terminated, till his reinstatement, the Bank shall pass an appropriate order as per the rules of the Bank within a period of 90 days from the date of communication of this order. No order as to cost. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE vj