IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2132 of 2010 1. MANOJ KUMAR S/O SHRI RAJESHWAR PRASAD R/O VILL JAMALPUR GOGRI,P.O.GOGRI,P.S.GOGRI,DISTT-KHAGARIA,PRESENTLY POSTED AS THE LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER,NIRMALI ,P.O.& P.S.SUPAUL,BIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER LABOUR RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, LABOUR RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE LABOUR GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, MUNGER DIVISION, BEGUSARAI 5. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, AGRICULTURE LABOUR, BHAGALPUR 6. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AGRICULTURE LABOUR, KOSHI DIVISION, SAHARSA ----------- 02. 13.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of consideration for grant of A.C.P., notwithstanding his representations for the same. The bone of contention is an earlier termination dated 9.8.1991 of the petitioner when he came to be reinstated by order dated 17.1.1995 in C.W.J.C. No. 5693 of 1991. If the period in between the termination and reinstatement by the order of this Court amounts to a break in service, the petitioner may not have a claim for computation of the service period prior to termination. If, it is not a break in service and there is continuity of service, the petitioner is entitled to be considered accordingly. The respondents in their counter affidavit take the stand that the consequent to the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5693 of 1991, it was a fresh appointment and consequentially, there was a break in 2 his service. On a bare reading of the earlier order dated 17.1.1995 of this Court at paragraph10, it is apparent that the Court found the termination to be unsustainable and it was quashed with direction for reinstatement within a period of fortnight. Liberty was given to hold a fresh inquiry which admittedly has not been held. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order on the writ petition has not been even challenged by the respondents. Learned counsel for the State submits that this Court specifically denied back wages and thus there is no continuity in service. The issue of reinstatement and denial of back wages are separate issues. Denial of back wages shall not lead to a conclusion that there was no reinstatement with continuity. If the termination was quashed as not sustainable in law with direction for reinstatement, the legal position that emerges is that there was never a termination. Continuity in service is a natural corollary. Back wages is an entirely different issue which the Courts have held does not follow automatically upon reinstatement. This is based on the theory that a person cannot have a dual benefit. He may have been employed elsewhere, and have had a source of income. He would stand to have a double benefit of income from two sources. It is for that reason that the Courts have held that back wages do not follow as a matter of course. 3 This Court, therefore, holds that the consequent to the termination having been set aside and reinstatement directed, there is continuity in service with no break. The respondents are directed to consider his claim for grant of A.C.P. benefits accordingly within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)