A government servant who is reinstated after dismissal from service is entitled to full salary and allowances for the intervening period if he is found to be fully exonerated. In other cases, the government servant is entitled to such proportion of pay and allowances as the competent authority may prescribe.

S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. The petitioner while prayed for direction on the Respondents not to treat the period from 22nd December 98 to 16th March 98, as on leave, made further prayer to direct them to pay the full salary of the aforesaid period. Prayer has also been made to direct the Respondents to revise his salary, increment of the intervening period and to pay the arrears and current salary. Prayer for time bound promotion has also been made.

2. It appears that while, in service, the petitioner was transferred and for noncompliance of such order of transfer, he was proceeded in departmental proceeding.

The charge sheet was issued on 20th April85, whereinafter, after enquiry his service was terminated from retrospective date of 17th March 82, vide an order dated 21st December 89. The appeal preferred by petitioner was rejected with minor modification vide order dated 20th April91 and the order of termination was given effect from prospective date (21st December89).

3. The petitioner at that stage moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4546/91 and challenged the order of punishment. This Court on hearing the parties, vide judgment and order dated 19th February96 remitted the matter to the appellate authority to take a fresh decision, holding the order of termination as illegal. The appellate authority was also ordered to determine the question of payment of salary for the period from 17th March 82 to 21st December98.

4. It appears that the Respondents in pursuance of Courts order cancelled the earlier appellate order dated 20th, Apri!91 and reinstated the petitioner, vide Order No.1007 dated 5th June97. However, while petitioner was reinstated, it was ordered that the intervening period from 21st December89 onwards to be converted towards admissible leave and the period will be counted only for the purpose of pension.

5. In view of aforesaid stipulation made at Paragraphs 2 and 3 to the order of reinstatement dated 5th June97 the present writ petition has been preferred.

6. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the authorities should have passed order for salary of the intervening period in terms with Rule 97(2) of the Bihar Service Code. The order of termination having found to be not justified by this Court and the authorities having reinstated for same very reason, the petitioner was entitled to receive full salary of the intervening period. Further, according to him, the petitioner being reinstated, he is entitled for consequential benefit including fixation of pay on release of year to year increments; such refixation in the revised scale of pay; and time bound promotion to which the petitioner was entitled under the law.

7. The Respondents in their counter affidavit while reiterated the fact relating to non-joining of the petitioner in pursuance of order of transfer issued in 1992, stated that the petitioner was reinstated in view of this Courts observations, the arrears of salary could not be paid due to non-availability of service book of petitioner and objections as made by Treasury Officer, Gaya.

8. The question relating to determination of salary of intervening period, on reinstatement from dismissal/removal from service, is required to be determined by the authorities under Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code. For withholdment of part of the same, it is also required for the competent authority to issue appropriate notice to the incumbent, on reinstatement. If, in the opinion of the authorities, the Government servant is found to be fully exonerated, he is entitled to receive full pay and allowances to which the incumbent would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed. In other cases, the Government servant is entitled for such proportion of pay and allowances, as the competent authority may prescribe.

9. In the present case, the authorities have not determined the issue in terms with the provision of Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code. Though, the petitioner has been reinstated, it has not been