- (1.) HEARD Sri H. P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishwajeet Sahai, learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that; the petitioner was appointed through selection process on the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari. After completing the pro­bation period, the petitioner continued on the said post. It appears that on the basis of cer­tain adverse entries, the petitioner's services was terminated on 2-7-1991. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid termination order in Writ Petition No. 21775 of 1991. On 23-8-1991, this Court entertained the writ petition and stayed the operation of the impugned or­der dated 2-7-1991. The petitioner claimed that after the impugned order, he had been allowed to join on 24-871991. The said writ petition has been finally allowed vide order dated 9-11-1998 and the termination order dated 2-7-1991 has been quashed. On the plea that final order in the writ petition came to knowledge of the petitioner only in the year 2002, there­fore petitioner filed copy of the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition vide registered post on 8-3-2002. The petitioner claimed the reinstatement of his services and salary for the past period and other consequential ben­efits. It appears that on the basis of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner has been reinstated on 16-7-2003. The petitioner's claim for the salary for the past period has been re­jected by the District Raj Panchayat Adhikari vide order dated 16-7-2003. Being aggrieved by the order, the peti­tioner filed the appeal before the Regional Deputy Director (Panchayat), Gorakhpur Re­gion, Gorakhpur. The claim of the petitioner for the past period during which he was absent was denied. It has been held that there was no reason for filling the copy or the order after three years by registered post on 8-3-2002.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner sub­mitted that the petitioner has been treated as a fresh appointee on 16-7-2003 in the pay-scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590 which is patently illegal. He submitted that once the termination order has been set aside, his ser­vices deemed to have been restored from the date of the termination. He further submitted that if an employee is reinstated, his services should not be treated as a fresh appointment. He further submitted that after the interim order, he had been allowed to join on 24-8-1991 but he had not been allotted any work, therefore, he is entitled for the salary for the entire period even for those period during which he had not worked. He further submit­ted that in any view of the matter when the order of this Court was served upon the au­thority concerned vide registered post on 8-3-2002, he should have been immediately reinstated and the salary should be given from 8-3-2002.;