IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.344 of 2010 1. RAJENDRA PASWAN S/O SRI BISO PASWAN R/O VILL.- GOSALA, P.O. MADHUBANI, P.S. JAINAGAR, DISTT.- MADHUBANI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF EXCISE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT, PURNEA 4. THE EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT, JEHANABAD ----------- 04 12.04.2010 We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. The short facts to be noticed are that the petitioner, an Excise Constable was appointed as such in 1980, terminated on 17.5.1982. He challenged the same in C.W.J.C. No. 2128 of 1988 which was dismissed on 22.4.1988. Civil Review No. 3 of 1990 followed by him, which was allowed on 6.8.1990 with liberty to file a duly instituted application for the same cause of action, leading to C.W.J.C. No. 756 of 1991, quashing the order of termination directing reinstatement with consequential benefits. L.P.A. No. 474 of 2000 against the same by the State came to be dismissed, likewise S.L.P. No. 6419 of 2001 preferred by the State was also dismissed on 24.9.2001. From the aforesaid factual sequence, we see no reasons to come to any different conclusion than the Hon’ble Single Judge, who rightly held that there being no challenge to the order of termination till 1988, the 2 petitioner was not entitled to any wages for that period. Insofar as the period of 1988 to 1999, before actual reinstatement on 22.9.1999 is concerned, the petitioner in the writ application did not make any pleadings of his status in the interregnum and whether he had any source of livelihood or not. The submission of behalf of the petitioner that the direction in C.W.J.C. No. 756 of 1991 ipso facto entitled him to all arrears of back wages irrespective of all issues having been affirmed in the L.P.A. and the S.L.P. does not appeal to us. The words “consequential benefits” has to be read in context of the law with regard to back wages. If the respondents made any concessions contrary to law by an order dated 5.10.2001, it is for them to honour the same, but it shall certainly not create a legal right in the petitioner to found a cause of action upon the same before a Court of Law. It came to be passed without any finding of his status in the interregnum. Back wages, have been held not to be a natural concomitant of an order of reinstatement. Wages to a Government employee are paid from public funds. At this stage it also assumes importance that the order in C.W.J.C. No. 756 of 1991 did not set aside the termination on merits, but only because certain others similarly terminated had been reinstated. 3 The Hon’ble Single Judge has rightly held that consequent upon reinstatement full back wages are not paid as a matter of right. In conclusion we, therefore, hold that the petitioner is not entitled to any arrears of salary from the date of termination till 1988. In view of the tenacity with which he has pursued the claim and contested, we consider it appropriate to grant him 50% of the back wages till August, 1999 which shall suitably reimburse his litigation expenses also. Once reinstatement has been directed, except for the issue of wages, he is entitled to all other service benefits of seniority etc. from the date of his original appointment. The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.) (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)