Sankarasubban, J.

Both these Writ Appeals are filed against the judgment of a learned single Judge in O.P.Nos.27551 and 27889 of 2001. O.P.No.27551 of 2001 was filed challenging Ext.P19 order of the Travancore Devaswom Board directing the petitioner to remit the entire arrears of salary received by him, while he was out of service.

2. So far as the other Original Petition is concerned, it was filed by one P.C.Vijayakumar, who was suspended from service along with the petitioner in the other Original Petition. Here also he challenges the order passed by the Travancore Devaswom Board to recover the arrears of salary. Facts in both these cases are as follows.

3. Both the petitioners were working in the Travancore Devaswom Board. They were suspended pending disciplinary proceedings against them. The Enquiry Officer found that the allegations against the petitioners were proved. The Devaswom Board dismissed the petitioner in O.P.No.27551 of 2001 while compulsory retired the petitioner in the other Original Petition. The above orders were challenged before this Court. This Court by common judgment found that the enquiry was vitiated for non-compliance of the principles of natural justice and in violation of the Rules of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules. Thus, the entire proceedings were quashed. Subsequently, the petitioners were taken back in service. It appears that subsequent to the reinstatement, the petitioners were paid the entire arrears of salary for the period they were out of duty. According to the Devaswom Board, it was a mistake on their part to have allowed the petitioners to recover the entire arrears of salary. Hence, notices were issued for recovering the arrears. It is this order that is challenged before this Court.

4. The learned single Judge after going through the facts and circumstances of the case, held that so far as the petitioners are concerned, there was a declaration that their termination was bad. It was held that the matter was disposed of on merits and hence, the petitioners were entitled to salary.

5. Learned counsel for the Devaswom Board submitted that when a dismissal order or compulsory retirement from service is set aside by court, Rule 56A of the Kerala Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘the K.S.R. Rules’) applies. Rule 56A of the K.S.R. Rules consists of Sub Rules 1,2 and 3, which are as follows:

“56A(1) where the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of an officer is set aside by a Court of Law and such officer is re-instated without holding any further inquiry the period of absence from duty shall be regularized and the officer shall be paid pay and allowances in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2) or sub rule (3) subject to the directions if any, of the court.

(2) Where the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of an officer is set aside by the court solely on the ground of non-compliance with the requirements of clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution, and where he is not exonerated on merits, the pay and allowances to be paid to the officer for the period intervening between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement including the period of suspension preceding such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and the date of re-instatement shall be determined by the competent authority and the said period shall be regularized; in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-rule (4), (5) and (7) of rule 56.

(3) If the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of an officer is set aside by the court on the merits of the case, the period intervening between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement including the period of suspension preceding such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be; and the date or re-instatement shall be treated as duty for all purposes and he shall be paid the full pay and allowances for the period to which he wo