Honble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Ram Lal Singh, Advocate assisted by Sri R.C. Tiwari for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. District Magistrate, Sonbhadra vide order dated 26.6.2006 has rejected the claim of petitioner for payment of retiral benefits as well as family pension to the petitioner after the death of petitioner’s husband, Sri Kamla Kant Chaubey and aggrieved thereto the present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing of the same and also a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay arrears of salary, pensionary benefits including family pension etc.

3. The facts in brief as not disputed are that the petitioner’s husband Late Kamla Kant Chaubey was employed as Lekhpal on temporary basis on 18.11.1957 and was terminated by order dated 29.11.1963 passed by the District Magistrate, Mirzapur. The said order of termination was assailed in Writ Petition No. 219 of 1964 which was allowed vide judgement dated 24.4.1966. The Writ Petitions No. 215 of 1964 and 217 of 1964 involving a similar controversy were decided on merits and the petitioner’s writ petition was decided in terms of the judgement passed in Writ Petition No. 215 of 1964, the operative part whereof is reproduced as under:

“I accordingly allow these writ petitions and declare that services of the petitioners have not been legally terminated. I further direct the respondents to treat the petitioners as continuing if their service till either services are legally terminated or they are made permanent, the petitioners will be entitled to their costs of these petitions.”

4. It appears that a Special Appeal No. 495 of 1966 was filed by the State of U.P. and others wherein this Court agreed with the findings of Hon’ble Single Judge that the services of the petitioner-respondents were not terminated validly and dismissed the special appeal vide judgement dated 17.4.1972. The respondents, however, did not implement the above judgement immediately or within a reasonable time but could reinstate him on 1.2.1981 as Lekhpal on temporary basis whereafter he attained the age of superannuation i.e., 58 years, and retired on 30.9.1981. The respondents treated the petitioner’s husband’s non-employment from 29.11.1963 to 31.1.1981 as break in service/extraordinary leave and, therefore, did not pay any retiral benefits since according to them he had not completed the qualifying service of 20 years. Only a provisional family pension/family gratuity to the tune of Rs. 63,655/- has been paid to the petitioner on 3.11.2004 and reiterating these very reasons the impugned order has been passed by the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that non-reinstatement by respondents of the petitioner’s husband till 31.1.1981 cannot be attributed to the said employee since it was incumbent upon the respondents to treat him in continuous service in view of the declaration made by this Court vide judgement dated 24.4.1966 where this Court held that the respondents shall treat the petitioners as continuing in service till either their services are legally terminated or they are made permanent. Meaning thereby the continuous service of petitioner’s husband did not depend on the fact whether the respondents actually reinstated him or not but in law it was deemed to continue with all legal consequences. Any delay or non-compliance on the part of respondents for not actually reinstating the petitioner’s husband cannot cause any irreparable loss to the benefits accrued to petitioner’s husband or to the petitioner inasmuch as that would amount to allowing the respondents to take advantage of their own wrong. Further he submits that in view of the amendment made in Fundamental Rule 56 in the year 1975 by U.P. Act No. 24 of 1975 even a temporary Government servant was held entitled for retiring pension under clause (e) thereof. Merely because the petitioner’s husband continued to be