D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) Against an order of dismissal an appeal was filed before the Commissioner which stood rejected. Against the said order a Civil Suit No. 535 of 1969 was filed. During the pendency of the suit, U. P. Public Service Tribunal Act came into force. The said suit was there upon transferred to the Tribunal which found that the order of dismissal was void and illegal and had set aside the order of dismissal. In the said suit, the learned tribunal had couched the order in the following manner : "Suit No. 535 of 1969 of the Court of the Munsif city, Meerut is decreed with costs which we assess at Rs. 150. The order dated 5.7.67 of the Collector, Meerut removing the plaintiff from service is declared to be void and illegal and the plaintiff is declared to continue in service and he shall get all its benefits according to rules. However, the punishing authority shall be free to take disciplinary action against him from the stage of filing reply to the charge-sheet if so advised." The respondents proposed to calculate the benefits payable to the petitioner pursuant to the said decree on the basis of proviso to Rule 54 of the Financial Hand Book Volume II, Part II (hereinafter called as the Rules). The petitioner disputed the same and claimed fully salary for the whole period. Accordingly, he lodged an execution proceeding which was allowed by the learned Munsif by an order dated 5.3.1984 overruling the objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the State of U. P. through Collector, Meerut. Thereupon the State of U. P. through Collector, Meerut filed a civil revision being Civil Revision No. 416 of 1984. The said revision has been allowed by an order dated 5.9.1985. It is this order which has since been challenged by means of this writ petition.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length. In order to appreciate the respective contentions, it would be useful to refer to Rule 54A (2) (i) of the said Rules.
(3.) Sub-rule 2 (i) of Rule 54A provides as follows : "Where the dismissal, removal of compulsory retirement of a Government Servant is set aside by the Court solely on the ground of non-compliance with the requirements of clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution and where he is not exonerated on merits and no further inquiry is proposed to be held, the Government servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (7) of Rule 54, be paid such amount (not being the whole) of the pay and allowance to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, as the competent authority may determine after giving notice and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him in that connection within such period as may be specified in the notice : Provided that any payment under this sub-rule to a Government servant shall be restricted to a period of three years immediately proceeding the date on which the judgment of the Court was passed or the date of retirement on superannuation of such Government servant, as the case may be.";