Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Ashish Kumar holding brief of Sri Vivek Chaudhary learned Counsel for the Respondents and learned standing counsel for the State -Respondent.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner states that against the order of termination dated 30.4.1990 from the post of Assistant Teacher, the Petitioner filed the present petition which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 16.3.2000, copy of which has been filed as Annexure -1 to the affidavit accompanying the present clarification application No. 39973 of 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the clarification application). It is contended that the clarification application was moved on behalf of the Petitioner on which this Court vide order dated 29.3.2000 clarified the Judgment and order dated 16.3.2000 to the extent that the benefit of past services will be provided to the Petitioner as soon as the Petitioner is accommodated in the next available vacancy and his past services shall be counted but he will not be entitled to get any financial benefit, copy of the order dated 29.3.2000 has been filed as Annexure -2 to the affidavit accompanying the present clarification application. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was absorbed on 31.5.2002. It is further contended that now the order dated 7.5.2004 has been passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Meerut whereby he has held that pursuant to the modified order of this Court dated 29.3.2000 passed by this Court disentitling the Petitioner with regard to past financial benefits even the future increment have been disallowed to the Petitioner and, therefore, clarification is being sought that the order that no financial benefit will be given to the Petitioner for the period for which he has not worked, would not disentitle the Petitioner for grant of future increments on the basis of his total length of service. After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Counsel for the Respondents and the learned standing counsel, learned standing counsel do not controvert the averments as raised by the learned Counsel for Petitioner. Accordingly, the present clarification application No. 39973 of 2005 is allowed and the order dated 29.3.2000 is clarified to the extent that the intent of the said order is that the Petitioner will be entitled to get the benefit of his length of service.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the present clarification application No. 39973 of 2005 is allowed and the order dated 29.3.2000 is clarified to the extent that the intent of the said order is that the Petitioner would be entitled to get the benefit of his length of his service pursuant to the aforesaid order in computing of future increments which may be payable to him in future and the only embargo was that he would not get the salary/financial benefit for the period for which he had worked earlier.;