NAYUDU, C. J.:- Civil Rule No. 398 of 1965 - The petitioner in this Civil Rule was appointed as Clerk in Coaching Section in the scale of Rs. 250/- to 380/-. His services were terminated by the Railway authority acting under Rule 148 of the Railway Establishment Code on 3-7-59. The petitioner ultimately moved the Supreme Court by way of a writ petition claiming that he was wrongfully dis­missed and that the rules were ultra vires and unconstitutional. Allowing the petition on 5-12-63, their Lordships of the Supreme Court struck down this rule as unconstitutional and void, and directed reinstatement of the petitioner and granted the prayer of the petitioner before them that he should be treated to be in continuous service. Writ of mandamus was issued on the Railway by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. The effect of this decision obyiously is that the petitioner continues to be in service, in view of the fact that rules under which he was removed from service were struck down as void and unconstitutional. Such being the case, the order of the Railway authority reinstating the petitioner from 16-6-64 itself seems to be meaningless, as in compliance with the order of the Supreme Court, the Railway authority should have declared that the petitioner was continuing in service notwithstanding the orders that were made against him removing him from service. What is more strange is that the peti­tioner appears to have been paid only three years' pay prior to the date of the order reinstat­ing the petitioner, and no arrears of pay was given for the period between the date of re­moval from service and the commencement of the three year period prior to the date of rein­statement. This action of the Railway, in our opinion, is in direct disregard of the decision of the Supreme Court, to which the Railway was a party, which directed that the petitioner must be deemed to be in service without a break. Such being the case, there should not have been any question about paying the petitioner his salary for the period he was kept out of his service by the Railway by an order which was quashed by the Supreme Court. (2) We accordingly direct that the petitioner should be paid his salary for the period from 3-7-59 to 4-12-60. Such being the case, there should not have been any question about paying the petitioner his salary for the period he was kept out of his service by the Railway by an order which was quashed by the Supreme Court. (2) We accordingly direct that the petitioner should be paid his salary for the period from 3-7-59 to 4-12-60. The petition is accordingly allowed and the rule is made absolute, with the above directions, with costs which we assess at Rs. 100/-. (3) Civil Rule No. 401 of 1965 - The point that is urged in this Civil Rule is similar to the one urged in the above case. (4) In this case, the petitioner was appoint­ed in the Railway service in the scale of Rs. 70/-to 85/-. The service of the petitioner was termi­nated under Rule 149 of the Railway Establish­ment Code with effect from 2-9-59. He challeng­ed the validity of this order ultimately in the Supreme Court, successfully, and the Supreme Court directed that he should be deemed to be in service all along. He was, however, reinstated by the Railway only on 6-3-64 and he was only paid arrear pay for the period from 4-12-60 to 5-3-64 and not for the remaining period. In the present petition the petitioner claims that he should have been paid also his arrear pay for the period from 2-9-59 to 3-12-60 which had been improperly withheld by the Railway au­thority The point for consideration, therefore, is whether a direction could be issued in this regard, directing the Railway authority to make the payment. The position is covered by the decision in Civil Rule No. 398 of 1965. The Railway had no option but to treat the peti­tioner as continuing in service notwithstanding the order of dismissal which was quashed by the Supreme Court. Such being the case, there was no question of withholding his salary for the period he was held by the Supreme Court to be in continuous service. We accordingly direct that the Railway authority should pay the mount which is claimed turn as arrear of salaries which is only consequential on the judg­ment and direction of the Supreme Court (5) The petition is accordingly allowed and the rule is made absolute with costs which we assess at Rs. 100/-. (6) GOSWAMI, J. :- I agree with My Lord the Chief Justice. 100/-. (6) GOSWAMI, J. :- I agree with My Lord the Chief Justice. (7) I wish to point out that the controversy raised in these two matters between the two Railway employees and the Union of India re­presented by the Railway had not seen the light of day. It is difficult to assume that the General Manager, N. F Railway and the other Respondents were deprived of proper advice at the appropriate stage There must be something wrong somewhere mat these matters are dragged to the Court Petitions allowed.