Judgment:
1....Con.C.No.1857 of 2011 Bhagat Singh Thakur Manish Shrivastava 06.11.2012 Shri D.K.Tripathi, Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Uttam Maheshwari, Counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the order has been complied with vide order Annexure R-1 dated 17.8.2012 and the petitioner has been reinstated, so this petition has rendered infructuous.
To this, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order ought to have been given effect to within a reasonable period from the date of order passed by the writ Court but it has been given effect to after a period of one year so petitioner is entitled for the salary for the period during which the order has not been given effect to.
On raising this contention, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in identical matters order has been passed by the Division Bench directing payment of salary from the date of order passed by the writ Court.
However, in respect of back wages, a direction has been issued to make payment of back wages to the tune of 50%.
It is submitted that the same order would be given effect to in the case of petitioner also.
In view of the aforesaid statement made by the respondents, no action is required.
Proceedings are closed.
C.C.as per rules.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) JUDGE vj