1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4048/2006 Govardhan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 17.4.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, for the petitioner. Mr. R.R. Kanwar, Dy. Govt. Advocate. ... As a consequent to the conviction recorded for the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC the petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated 8.10.1985. The conviction referred above was set aside by the trial court while remitting the matter for its fresh adjudication. The trial court after recording additional evidence acquitted the petitioner with a finding that he was subjected to criminal charge on basis of a concocted story. Despite acquittal the order dated 8.10.1985 dismissing the petitioner from service was not recalled, thus, a petition for writ (SBCivil Writ Petition No.4309/1992) was preferred and that came to be accepted on 17.9.2001 with following directions: “Thus, it is a fit case in which a direction should be given to reinstate the petitioner and give him all consequential benefits. At this stage I am informed that the petitioner has retired long back. In these circumstances the petitioner should be reinstated notionally and given all consequential benefits. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, the respondents are directed to .. the order of dismissal and reinstate him on notional basis and given all consequential benefits. The order shall be complied within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the writ.” 2 In compliance to the directions above the Director, Medical and Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur passed an order dated 25.1.2003 cancelling the order dated 23.9.1985 and reinstating the petitioner in service and also permitted all consequential benefits on notional basis. The grievance sought to be ventilated by this petition for writ is that as per the directions of this Court dated 17.9.2001 the consequential benefits were required to be given actually and not notionally. Per contra as per the respondents the notional benefits were allowed to the petitioner in view of the directions given by this Court dated 17.9.2001. Heard counsel for the parties. This Court by the order dated 17.9.2001 directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner notionally and to grant all consequential benefits. From reading of the judgment dated 17.9.2001 it is apparent that a direction was given for notional reinstatement of the petitioner on the count that the age of the retirement was already achieved by him. The respondents, therefore, rightly reinstated the petitioner on notional basis, however, so far as the consequential benefits are concerned those are required to be given actually and not notionally. In the event the respondents be permitted to allow notional benefits to the petitioner then the same will cause absolute loss of the relief granted by this Court under the judgment dated 17.9.2001. This Court 3 in quite specific terms confined only the relief of reinstatement on notional basis with a specific direction to given all consequential benefits. The interpretation made by the respondents with regard to the grant of consequential benefits also notionally is absolutely contrary to the directions given. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The respondents are directed to give consequential benefits to the petitioner on his reinstatement on actual basis. No order as to cost. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal