S.U.KHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) PETITIONER was an Assistant Development Officer Agriculture. Now he has retired. On 25.3.1985, petitioner was suspended. He remained under suspension for about four years and three months. Additional Director of Agriculture on 4.12.1988 awarded two punishments. One was of deduction of about Rs. 11,000/- from the salary of the petitioner, which was equivalent to one third of the amount regarding which loss had been caused to the Government due to the activities/negligence of the petitioner. The other punishment was that two increments were stopped permanently. It was further directed that decision regarding balance salary for the suspension period would be taken after issuing show cause notice. Petitioner was immediately reinstated. In pursuance of the said order, notice was issued to the petitioner, regarding suspension period balance salary and benefits. Thereaf­ter, an order was passed on 19.6.1989, which is contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It was directed that for the suspension period apart from suspension allowance already paid, no other amount by way of balance salary etc. would be payable to the petitioner. However, it was directed in the last sentence that period of suspension would not be treated to be break in service for pension purposes. Against punishment order dated 4.12.1988/4.1.1989 and order dated 19.6.1989, appeal was filed which was decided on 20.8.1998 and the punishment of stoppage 9f two increments was set aside and other punishments were approved.
(3.) COPY of the judgment of appeal dated 20.8.1998 is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Through the said appeal, both the orders were challenged, i.e. order dated 4.1.1989 and order dated 19.6.1989 (punishment order appears to have been passed on 4.12.1988 and dispatched on 4.1.1989). Petitioner retired in 1996. Earlier also a writ petition had been filed by the petitioner being Writ Petition No. 41196 of 2002. Writ petition was allowed on 27.9.2002 only in respect of prayer (b) and it was directed that petitioner's salary should be redetermined on the last pay drawn with simple interest at the rate of 10% per month (sic. year). It was specifically observed as follows in the said judgment dated 27.9.2002: "It is apparent from record that taking in account the appellate order dated 20.8.1998, by which the punishment of stopping two increments with permanent effect was set aside, petitioner's pay was required to be re-fixed and the pension payment order is also liable to be amended taking into account the two increments which were earned by him." ;