IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8334 of 2010 1. MD. ABBAS ALAM S/O LATE MD. NASEER AHMAD R/O VILL.- GANJ, P.O.- SIMRI BAKHTIARPUR, P.S.- BAKHTIARPUR, DISTT.- SAHARSA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAHARSA ----------- 2 16.03.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the interpretation by the respondents, as contained in Annexure-9, of the earlier orders of this Court, is allowed to stand, the same may affect the pensionary benefits of the petitioner after he superannuates, about four years hence. Learned counsel submits that while allowing the earlier writ application of the petitioner, vide Annexure-6, this Court had held that ‘the petitioner shall stand reinstated on the lowest level of seniority at the basic pay scale.’ This Court also granted liberty to the petitioner to claim back wages finding that there are laches on the part of the petitioner and the respondents both. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the Court had used the word ‘reinstate’ the respondents cannot treat the petitioner as ‘reemployed’ which nomenclature wipes out the petitioner’s entire previous service. He submits that if he is ‘reinstated’ his previous service can at least be counted for the 2 purposes of pensionary benefits. Therefore, he submits that the respondents should consider the petitioner ‘reinstated’ and not ‘reemployed’ and consider his representation for back wages in that perspective. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner has some substance. Though this Court in the earlier writ application had granted absolute discretion to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for back wages, but it did held the petitioner ‘shall stand reinstated’. Hence, the respondents should treat the petitioner as such and thereafter dispose of his representation afresh in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the question of entitlement of petitioner for back wages. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)