1 S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4903/2007 (Shambhoo Giri v. The State of Rajasthan & Others) DATE OF ORDER :::: 18/02/2008 HON'BLE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J. Mr.S.P.Sharma, for Petitioner. Mr.Rishi Vaishnav, Dy. State Counsel, for Respondents. The petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal dated 16.07.1983 vide Annexure 7 passed on conviction of the petitioner in the criminal case vide the Judgment dated 3.5.1983. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of conviction dated 3.5.1983 has been to be set aside by this Court vide its judgment dated 8th September, 2006 Annexure 15. After passing of said judgment, petitioner made representation to the respondents for recalling of the order of dismissal dated 16. 7.1983. However, even after receipt of representation by the respondents, nothing has been done till today. In this respect, my attention was drawn towards Annexures 16 and 17 by which representations were made by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Judgment 2 dated 8th September, 2006 has not further been challenged by the Government, therefore, the acquittal order has become final and it is, otherwise, a case, where no departmental enquiry was conducted by the respondents for passing the order of dismissal. Thus, in view of the above, it becomes clear that not only the basis of the passing of the order of dismissal dated 16.7.1983 no more exists. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents could not give any explanation as to why the representation of the petitioner has not been considered and the order of dismissal impugned herein is being withdrawn. The submission made at bar by the counsel for the petitioner shows that no further appeal has been preferred by the Government, thus the very basis of passing of the impugned order becomes non-existent and, in those circumstances, the impugned order of dismissal cannot be allowed to stand further. In view of the above, the order of dismissal dated 16.7.1983 is set aside with a further direction that if the petitioner has not already attained the age of superannuation, then he may be reinstated in service with continuity of service and grant of notional benefits. The petitioner would be entitled for salary from the date of pronouncement of this judgment in 3 above circumstances, however, if the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation, then the respondents are directed to extend the benefit of pension to the petitioner after treating his services as continuous and with grant of benefit of notional fixation. The petitioner is directed to give joining to the respondents within ten days from the date of Judgment, in case he has not already attained the age of superannuation. The writ petition is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs. (M.N.BHANDARI), J. scd