The High Court has the power to grant consequential benefits under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a writ petition challenging an illegal order of termination of service.

( 1 ) THE question involved in this writ petition is what is the effect of judgment in W. P. No. 5924/85 dated 21-9-1988. It arises under the following circumstances: the petitioner was appointed as clerk-cum-Cashier in the State Bank of India, kollur. On 16-11-1984 a notice was issused to him stating that in the attestation form dt: 23-7-1984 submitted by him, he did not mention that he was remanded to judicial custody on 17-7-1984 and that he was employed in the office of the Regional provident Fund Commissioner, Guntur and he was asked to submit his explanation for suppressing the above facts. He made a representation on 21-11-1984 seeking one week time for submitting his explanation. However, without waiting for the explanation, the first respondent terminated the service of the petitioner by his proceedings dated 23-11-1984. The petitioner filed a representation on 10-4-1985 stating that the allegations made are not correct; that he was not taken into custody either by the police or under the orders of the court and that when he heard that he was implicated in a criminal case, he voluntarily went to the court on 17-7-1984 and executed a bond with sureties for his due appearance whenever required by the court which was accepted.

( 2 ) ON the second allegation, he submitted that he was employed temporarily by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and it was not a regular appointment. In the representation he also requested the authorities to cancel the orders of termination. Since, the authorities did not heed to his request, he approached this court by way of writ petition W. P. No. 5924/1985, which came up before a learned single Judge who allowed the same on the ground that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity of representation and that the order was- violative of Articles 14, 16 (1) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

( 3 ) PURSUANT to the judgment of this court dated 21-9-1988, the second respondent by his letter dated 30-11-1988 reinstated the petitioner as clerk-cum-cashier in the Bank from the date of issuance of the proceedings. On a representation claiming consequential benefits, the petitioner was paid the salary for December, 1988 with the initial basic pay in the cadre and the allowances thereon and he accepted the same under protest. The first respondent by his proceedings dated 19-7-1989 confirmed the services of the petitioner with effect from 30-1-1989 and he was admitted to the Provident Fund. In the same proceedings, it is stated that the petitioner was not eligible for pension fund. The petitioner was not made eligible for pension fund in view of para-8 (b) of the State Bank of India employees pension fund which states that a person who is over 38 years of age is not eligible to be admitted as members of the fund. When the petitioner was originally appointed on 16-11-1984, he was only 36 years and therefore, he was eligible to the benefits of the pension fund, but, by virtue of the illegal orders of termination and by virtue of his reinstatement to duty on 30-11-1988 by which date he attained 40 years of age, the respondent did not admit the petitioner to the pension fund. On receipt of the letter dated 19-7-1989, the petitioner made a representation requesting the first respondent and the second respondent to count his service between the date of termination till the date of reinstatement i. e. , 30-11-1988, but the first respondent refused to grant the same. Challenging the above order, denying the petitioner the consequential benefits following the judgment of this court in W. P. No. 5924/85, the present writ petition was filed. The counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the following contentions.

( 4 ) THE orders of termination were in violation of principles of natural justice under Articles 14 or, 16 or 21 of the constitution of India. An order which takes away or abridges the fundamental rights of citizens under Articles 14 or 21 would be void and therefo