JUDGMENT :

(Rajnish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri S.K. Gaur, Advocate holding brief of Shri Amitabh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.08.2011, contained in annexure no.1 to the writ petition, to the extent it denies the arrears of salary for the period w.e.f. 26.12.1997 to 15.06.2009. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay the arrears of salary for the said period in accordance with Rule 54-A read with Rule 53(1) & (2) of the Financial Hand Book, Vol.-II, Part-II to IV (here-in-after referred as Financial Hand Book) alongwith interest.

3. The facts, relevant for disposal of the instant writ petition, are that the petitioner was suspended in contemplation of departmental proceedings for the alleged misconduct by means of the order dated 12.09.1997. Thereafter the petitioner was dismissed from service by means of the order dated 26.12.1997 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Gonda, invoking the provisions of Rule 8(2)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules-1991 (here-in-after referred as Rules of 1991). The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal as well as the suspension order, before this Court, in Writ Petition No.919 (S/S) of 1998; Abhay Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others. The writ petition was allowed by means of the judgment and order dated 17.04.2009 and the respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to work on the post, which he was holding prior to the order of dismissal and shall be paid salary and allowances as admissible to him. The operative portion of the order dated 17.04.2009 is extracted here-in-below:-

"Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 26.12.1997 and 12.09.1997 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Gonda, are hereby set-aside. The opposite parties are directed to allow the petitioner to work on the post which he was holding prior to the order of dismissal and shall be paid salary and allowances as admissible to him.

However, the above order will not prevent the respondents from initiating departmental enquiry against the petitioners, if they so desire."

4. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the petitioner was allowed to join. Though it was provided in the aforesaid order dated 17.04.2009, while allowing the writ petition, that the above order will not prevent the respondents from initiating departmental enquiry against the petitioners, if they so desire but admittedly no departmental enquiry has been held against the petitioner. The petitioner was reinstated into service on the post which he was holding at the time of dismissal i.e. the post of Constable and he was posted in the office of Superintendent of Police, Gonda.

5. While reinstating the petitioner by means of the order dated 16.06.2009 in compliance of the judgment and order dated 17.04.2009, it was provided that so far as the arrears of salary are concerned, a separate order would be passed in that regard. Since no decision was being taken, the petitioner approached this Court by means of Writ Petition no.1352 (S/S) of 2011; Abhay Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others. The writ petition was disposed of with direction to the opposite party no.3 i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Gonda to consider the representation of the petitioner with regard to the arrears of salary and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. In pursuance thereof a show cause notice dated 03.07.2011 under Rule 54-A, Vol.-II, Part-II to IV of Financial Hand Book was issued and served on the petitioner, a copy of which is annexed as annexure no.2 to the writ petition. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice dated 11.07.2011. After considering the reply of the petitioner, the impugned order dated 25.08.2011 has be