JUDGMENT :

Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Manu Saxena, learned counsel who appears for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in both the writ petitions.

2. The Writ Petition No. 15156 of 2022 has been filed praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to pay arrears of the salary for the post of Head Clerk w.e.f. 25.1.2019 up to 31.12.2020 i.e. the period between termination and the date of joining alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum and to pay arrears of unpaid salary during the period of suspension i.e. w.e.f. 6.7.2018 to 25.1.2019 after adjusting subsistence allowance paid to the petitioner with admissible interest.

3. The writ petition No. 15946 of 2022 has been filed praying for a direction to be issued to the respondents to permit the petitioner to work on the post of Head Clerk on which he was working earlier before the suspension, he being the senior most clerk of Nagar Palika Parishad, Aonvla, Bareilly and to pay him regular salary of the post of Head Clerk as and when it falls due.

4. Earlier Writ Petition No. 15156 of 2022 was taken up earlier by this Court on 23.9.2022 and a detailed order was passed. The said order is being quoted hereinbelow :

''1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manu Saxena, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

2. This petition has been filed praying for a direction to be issued to the respondents to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner for the post of Head Clerk w.e.f. 25.1.2019 till 31.12.2020 i.e. period between termination and date of joining alongwith interest @ 12 % per annum.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as Head Clerk in Nagar Palika Parishad, Aonvla, District Barielly. The petitioner is a sincere worker, but on 16.7.2018 on the visit of an Hon'ble Minister in Nagar Palika Parishad, he requested the Driver of the Minister who had parked his car right in front of the gate of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Aonvla to remove the car and park it properly. The Driver of the Minister overreacted on the issue, and started fighting with the petitioner. The Minister did not take the aforesaid incident in a good spirit and he exercised his influenced over the respondents. No. 3 and 4 to initially suspend the petitioner on 16.7.2018, and to attach him at some other place. The petitioner was suspended and thereafter terminated on 25.1.2019 without any inquiry being conducted into the alleged misconduct. The petitioner challenged such order of termination in appeal. The Commissioner, Barielly Division, under Rule 3 of the U.P. Municipal Board Servants (Inquiry, Punishment and Termination of Service) Rules, 1960 exercised his power and set aside the termination order by observing that it had been passed without following the Principle of Natural Justice, leaving it open for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to initiate regular inquiry against the petitioner and to take appropriate action.

4. The petitioner was not permitted to join in pursuance of the order passed by the Commissioner and he approached this Court in Writ-A No. 12835 of 2020 (Rajneesh Tiwari v. State of U.P. and others) with a prayer for a Mandamus to be issued to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service and also to pay salary to the petitioner w.e.f. 6.7.2018 up to 25.1.2019, and thereafter, to pay him his full salary w.e.f. 25.1.2019 i.e. the date of the Order of the Termination till the date of his reinstatement.

5. This Court by its judgment and order dated 19.1.2021 had observed that the Order passed in Appeal clearly showed that the Appellate Authority has given liberty to the Executive Officer to initiate fresh Disciplinary Inquiry and the respondents have also initiated fresh Disciplinary Inquiry against the petitioner on 28.11.2020, thereafter.

6. The Court observed that since the respondents have proceeded with the fresh inquiry they may conclude the same in accordance with law and till fresh order is passed, after h