IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 7360/2008 Decided on:22.6.2010 _____________________________________________ Ridhi Singh. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was appointed as a Clerk under Deputy Commissioner, Kullu on 1.6.1981. He was confirmed on 28.2.1995. A case was registered against him under sections 341, 332, 504 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act. He was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lauhal-Spiti at Kullu vide judgment dated 23.7.1997. Respondent No.2 imposed major penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner with effect from 31.5.1998 vide order dated 29.5.1998. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate before the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 He acquitted the petitioner vide judgment dated 3.10.2000. Thereafter office order dated 2.12.2006 was issued whereby the petitioner was reinstated in service subject to final decision of the appeal pending in this Court. The appeal preferred by the State bearing Cr.A. No. 89/2001 has been dismissed by this Court on 29.12.2007. The copy of the same has been placed on record by the petitioner alongwith office order dated 2.12.2006 by way of CMP (T) No. 101/2010. 2. Since the Cr.A. No. 89/2001 has been dismissed by this Court on 29.12.2007, petitioner is held entitled to all the consequential benefits on the basis of reinstatement order dated 2.12.2006. 3. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to release all the monetary benefits accrued to him during the period, he remained out of employment. Needful be done within a period of ten weeks after the receipt of certified copy of this judgment. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 22.6.2010 *awasthi*