1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3101/2001 [Anil Krishnarao Tayade .vrs. Punjab National Bank and another] ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 14, 2009. Heard Mr. S.D. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.L. Bhoot, learned counsel for the respondents. By this petition the petitioner has challenged orders dated 5.5.2001 and 31.10.2001 passed by respondent no.2 and 1 respectively. By order dated 5.5.2001 respondent no.2 terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that he was convicted for the offence involving moral turpitude. Appeal preferred against the said order was dismissed by respondent no.1 by order dated 31.10.2001. It is not in dispute that on 17.5.2001 the learned Sessions Court, Amravati acquitted the petitioner of the offences for which he was convicted by the learned JMFC. Thereafter, pursuant to the representation made by 2 the petitioner, the petitioner was reinstated by order dated 4.9.2004 with effect from 13.9.2004. In view of the above position, the challenge to the impugned orders no more survives. However, the only issue which is involved for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to salary for the period from 5.5.2001 to 12.9.2004. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner during the period from 5.5.2001 to 12.9.2004 the petitioner was not gainfully employed. We do not deem it necessary to go into the aspect as to whether the petitioner was gainfully employed during the above mentioned period. We deem it appropriate to give liberty to the petitioner to make representation within a period of two weeks to respondent no.2 claiming salary for the above mentioned period. If such representation is made by the petitioner within a period of two weeks, respondent no.2 is directed to decide the said representation after considering the factual and legal position and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks. Needless to mention that all the contentions in this regard are kept open. Petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande