(1) THE respondent was a lecturer in one of the intermediate colleges in Uttar Pradesh. He faced certain proceedings and was put under suspension but later he was reinstated on 3/04/1976. It was alleged by him that on the following day he was sent for by the management and taking advantage of the fact that it was the period of emergency, he was threatened to resign otherwise he was told that he would be taken into custody. Respondent 1 took the stand that under the threat he resigned. Immediately after emergency was over he made representation to the District Inspector of Schools disclosing his stand that the resignation was not a valid one as it had been taken under threat. The Distrct Inspector accepted the stand of the respondent. and directed reinstatement on 10/04/1978. On the same date respondent 1 reported to duty. Against this order the management preferred an appeal to the Regional Deputy Director of Education. It is alleged that on the following date, i.e. 11/04/1978 the District Inspector had recalled his order of reinstatement against which the petitioner filed a writ petition and that was allowed. The High court has held that the order of the District Inspector recalling the order of restoration to service was bad. While disposing of the writ petition the High court found that the management had preferred an appeal which was still pending with the Deputy Director and the same should be disposed of. The Deputy Director in due course allowed the appeal and vacated the order of the District Inspector. Thereupon respondent 1 preferred a fresh writ petition to the High court which has succeeded. That has brought about this appeal by special leave.

(2) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties at some length we think it unnecessary to get into the exercise of finding out whether the District Inspectors order was amenable to an appeal under the Service Rules. The High court has taken the view that the impugned order of the District Inspector was not open to appeal to the Regional Deputy Director. We leave that question to be agitated in an appropriate case, if necessary. In the facts of the case we are inclined to agree with the counsel for the respondent that the order of the High court should be allowed to work out and respondent 1 who is already in service should be continued. There is also the question as to whether he should be paid salary for the period for which he was not actually working. In view of the finding of the District Inspector of Schools which has been approved by the High court that it was not a case of voluntary resignation but under threat respondent 1 had been made to resign, we are inclined to agree with the counsel for the respondent that the full salary should be admissible. Steps shall now be taken to ensure payment of full salary. Respondent 1 will be entitled to continuity of service. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Parties shall bear their own costs.