JUDGMENT :

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC appearing for all the respondents.

2. The petitioner has prayed for payment of arrear salary from 05.05.2001 to 12.12.2005 and from 02.01.2008 to 25.11.2014. The petitioner’s case in brief is that he was appointed as a Cinema Hall Manager in the Air Force Station, Jorhat in the scale of pay of Rs. 330-8-370-10-400-EB-18-480, in the year 1984, in pursuant to the selection process that had taken place in respect of Advertisement dated 12.12.1983. The petitioner’s service was confirmed in the year 1997.

3. The petitioner’s service was thereafter terminated vide Notice of Termination dated 23.04.2001. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed WP (C) No. 3112/2001. The same was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 01.05.2001, with a direction that post retiral benefits should be paid to the petitioner and thereafter the service of the petitioner may be terminated. Otherwise, the petitioner should be allowed to continue in service. Consequent to the order dated 01.05.2001 passed in WP (C) No. 3112/2001, the petitioner was reinstated into service vide letter dated 31.05.2001, by revoking the Notice of Termination dated 23.04.2001. The revocation of Notice of Termination of the petitioner vide letter dated 31.05.2001 also stated that fresh orders would be issued on completion of the court of inquiry proceedings relating to financial irregularities in the accounts of the cinema.

4. Subsequent to the above, the petitioner filed WP (C) No. 6607/2003 on the ground that he was not allowed to re-join his duty and was not allowed to sign the attendance register. It may be stated here that no action for termination of the service of the petitioner was undertaken by the respondents.

This Court disposed of WP (C) No. 6607/2003, vide order dated 16.08.2005, by holding that the petitioner should be allowed to join in service and he should be paid the regular and current salary by the respondents, within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. However, the respondents were given the liberty to complete the inquiry proceedings that had been initiated against the petitioner. Though the petitioner in his prayer in WP (C) No. 6607/2003 prayed for payment of his salary from April 2001, no direction was made for payment of arrear salary, thereby implying that the said prayer had not been allowed.

5. Consequent to the order dated 16.08.2005 passed in WP (C) No. 6607/2003, the respondents issued a letter dated 08.12.2005, reinstating the petitioner into service with immediate effect as per the terms and conditions binding upon him, during the course of his functioning as Cinema Hall Manager.

6. Subsequent to the above events, the Board of Inquiry initiated against the petitioner concluded with removal of the petitioner from service, vide order dated 02.01.2008. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed WP (C) No. 4182/2008. During the proceedings of WP (C) No. 4182/2008, the petitioner retired on 25.11.2014.

7. WP (C) No. 4182/2008 was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 01.06.2015, by setting aside the impugned penalty order dated 02.01.2008. This Court remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to take a fresh decision in the light of observations made in the order dated 01.06.2015, which was to include the period of service of the petitioner from 05.05.2001 to 12.12.2005. The decision was to be taken by the respondents within 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

8. The respondents thereafter issued the impugned Speaking Order dated 19.06.2019, releasing the petitioner from service w.e.f. 31.08.2004, i.e. the date the cinema was closed down and decided to pay 3 (three) months’ salary to the petitioner. The impugned Speaking Order also stated that the Board of Inquiry had been dispensed with, against the inquiry made into financi