ORDER
1. Heard the parties.
2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for quashing the order dated 26.11.2001 as contained in Annexure 3 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh by which the claim of the petitioner for payment of his salary for the period from 1.7.1990 to 13.11.1991 has been rejected. Further prayer is for direction to the respondent to pay the salary for the aforesaid period to the petitioner.
3. The facts of the matter in short are that the petitioner, who is a Village Level Worker (VLW), his appointment to the said post was cancelled on 28.6.1990. The petitioner challenged the said cancellation of his appointment before this Court in CWJC No. 1310 of 1999 (R). By Annexure 1 dated 15.7.1991 a Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ application and quashed the order for cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner. Consequently, by order dated 14.11.1991 the petitioner was taken back in service and was posted again at his previous place of posting, i.e. at Barhi Block.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner claimed his salary for the period from 1.7.1990 to 13.11.1991, which has been rejected by issue of Annexure 3, i.e. impugned order dated 26.11.2001 on the ground that nothing was said by the High Court in its order regarding payment of the salary for the aforesaid period to the petitioner and, therefore, on the basis of no work no pay the petitioner was not entitled to the same.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that similarly one Mukesh Kumar a VLW also challenged the cancellation of his appointment before this Court in CWJC No. 1236 of 1990(R) and a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 11.10.1990 also allowed the writ application and quashed the cancellation of the appointment of the aforesaid Mukesh Kumar but he has been paid his salary for the intervening period, i.e. period of his cancellation of appointment and the date of rejoining after the order of the High Court. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot be discriminated and he cannot be treated differently.
6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the State, on the basis of the averments made in the counter affidavit, submitted that the case of the petitioner is quite different to that of the said Mukesh Kumar. It is submitted that Mukesh Kumar, after rejoining had applied for grant of leave for the said period which was granted by the competent authority, whereas the petitioner did not apply for grant of such leave for the aforesaid period and, therefore, he is not entitled to the salary for the intervening period.
7. Considering the case of the respective parties, I am of the view that once the High Court quashed the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner then consequently the petitioner was entitled to have the salary for the intervening period even, if there was no specific direction of the High Court in that regard. Once the High Court declared the cancellation of appointment to be illegal the consequence would be that the petitioner would be deemed to be in service on the date of his appointment was cancelled.
8. In my view, unless there was specific order by the High Court debarring the petitioner from the back wages, i.e. the payment of salary to the petitioner for the said intervening period cannot be denied.
9. In view of my above discussion and findings, this application is allowed. The order as contained in Annexure 3 dated 26.11.2001, passed by the Deputy Commissioner is hereby quashed and he is directed to pass an appropriate order for payment of salary to the petitioner for the period from 1.7.1990 to 13.11.1991 within a period of four weeks from the date, of receipt/production of a copy of this order.