SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties and considered the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State.

(2.) IT appears that pursuant to the ORDER :passed by this Court in CWJC No. 4834 of 1996 as contained in annexure 1, the petitioner and others were re -employed.

(3.) FROM the ORDER :passed by this Court, as contained in annexure 1, it appears that the ORDER :of termination of services of the petitioner and others was quashed. However, it was clarified in the following terms: - "9. Coming to the question of consequential relief as the Department terminated the petitioners' services on the basis of and pursuant to the de -recommendation by the Commission and not on its own. I do not think it would be proper to saddle the Government with the burden of salary for the intervening period. As a matter of fact, in the case of Ratnesh Kumar (supra) whose services too had been terminated by the same ORDER :, has been denied salary for the intervening period vide ORDER :dated 24.2.1997 in CWJC No. 5194 of 1986. The petitioners however would be entitled to continuity of seniority as if the impugned ORDER :dated 18.11.1995 had never been passed at all."