JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. 1. THE petitioner has, by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenged the validity of the notice issued to him by the Station Engineer of All India Radio, Varanasi, dated 31st December, 1975, fixing the petitioner's fee and allowances for the period from 5-4-1971 to 31-7-74 during which he remained out of employment. 2. THE petitioner was appointed as Staff Artist, in the All India Radio, Bombay, under an agreement executed by him with the Director General of India Radio initially for a period of three years. His employment was subsequently renewed for a further period of three years. Later on, a clause was added to the agreement that he shall remain in service upto 31st December,1985, on which date he was to attain the age of superannuation. One of the terms of the agreement provided that the petitioner's services will be liable to be terminated on six months' notice on either side. While the petitioner was posted at Varanasi, a notice Mated October 5, 1970, was issued to him intimating him that his services would stand terminated on the expiry of six months' period from the date of the said notice, in accordance with the terms and conditions of service. THE petitioner challenged the validity of this order by means of a writ petition in this Court which was allowed on 12-7-1974. THE learned Judge held that the petitioner was holding civil post under Article 311 of the Constitution and as such his services could not legally be terminated by giving him six months' notice. THE learned Judge quashed the notice of termination and directed the respondents to treat the petitioner in service and to pay him the emoluments to which he was entitled. The Union of India preferred Special Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge before a Division Bench of this Court but the same failed and the order of the learned Single Judge was affirmed. Union of India, thereupon, filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court but that too failed and the judgment of thii Court became final. Meanwhile the petitioner was allowed to join his duties on 1-8-1974. The petitioner claimed his salary and other allowances for the period, 5-4-71 to 31-7-74, during which he remained out of service on account of the termination of his service. Meanwhile the petitioner was allowed to join his duties on 1-8-1974. The petitioner claimed his salary and other allowances for the period, 5-4-71 to 31-7-74, during which he remained out of service on account of the termination of his service. The Station Engineer by his order dated 31st December 1975 informed the petitioner that regarding payment of fees and allowances to him from the period 5-4-71 to 31-7-74 it was decided that the petitioner's case was covered by clause (2) of Fundamental Rule 54-A and having regard to the provisions of sub-rules (4), (5) and (7) of Fundamental Rule 54, it was decided that the petitioner be paid fee and allowance equal to the subsistence allowance that may be admissible to him for the period of three years immediately preceding the date of his reinstatement. The order stated that the subsistence allowance would be equal to the leave salary payable under Rule 53 (1) of the Fundamental Rules. The order, further stated that under Fundamental Rule 54 (4) the amount of fee and allowances to which the petitioner was entitled was Rs. 232. 60 per month. The petitioner made representation against the aforesaid order, he asserted that Fundamental Rules 53, 54 or 54-A were not applicable to his case and he was entitled to be paid full salary and allowances along with increments in view of the direction of the Court. The petitioner's representation was not accepted, he was informed that his arrear payment would be made to the extent as intimated to him, The petitioner accepted the payments under protest. Aggrieved the petitioner approached this Court by means of this petition. 3. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that since the petitioner's services were terminated in accordance with the terms of service contract without any allegations of misdemeanour or misconduct against him. Fundamental Rule 53 or 54-A is not attracted. In view of the direction issued by this Court in the earlier petition, the petitioner is entitled to full pay and allowances. The respondents were buond to carry out and implement the direction of this Court. Fundamental Rule 53 or 54-A is not attracted. In view of the direction issued by this Court in the earlier petition, the petitioner is entitled to full pay and allowances. The respondents were buond to carry out and implement the direction of this Court. On behalf of the respondents it is urged that petitioner's case is covered by clause (2) of Fundamental Rule 54-A, and in view of sub-rules (4) and (5) of Fundamental Rule 54 the petitioner is entitled to fees and allowances equal to the subsistence allowances admissible to him under the said provisions had he been placed under suspension for the period 5-4-71 to 31-7-74. 4. FUNDAMENTAL Rule 53 provides for determination of payments of subsistence allowance and other allowances to a Government servant under suspension or deemed to have been placed under suspension. The petitioner was never placed under suspension nor was he ever deemed to have been placed under suspension by any order of the appointing authority ; instead, his services were terminated under the terms of the contract of his service. The provisions of FUNDAMENTAL Rule 53 are not applicable for determining the petitioner's salary and allowances. Fundamental Rule 54 confers power on the competent authority to make orders regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of his absence from duty. When the Government servant who may have been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired is re-instated by the departmental authorities in appeal or review, the authority competent to order reinstatement is invested with power to pass orders for the payment of pay and allowances to the Government servant for the period of his absence from duty and the competent authority is further empowered to determine whether or not the said period shall be treated as period spent on duty. Where dismissal, removal or termination is declared invalid by a court of law and a further declaration is granted that the Government servant continues to be in service, the effect of the adjudication is that the public servant, has been wrongfully prevented from joining his duties as a public servant, and he continues to be in service. Where dismissal, removal or termination is declared invalid by a court of law and a further declaration is granted that the Government servant continues to be in service, the effect of the adjudication is that the public servant, has been wrongfully prevented from joining his duties as a public servant, and he continues to be in service. In Devendra Pratap's case, AIR 1962 SC 1334 the Supreme Court held that in such an event it would not be open to the competent authority to deprive the public servant of the remuneration which he would have earned had he been permitted to work. 5. FUNDAMENTAL Rule 54-A provides for the computation of pay and allowances to a Government servant who is re-instated in service after his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement is set aside by a court of Jaw. Sub-rule (2) of the Rule lays down that " where the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by the Court solely on the ground of non-compliance with the requirements of clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution, and where he is not exonerated on merits, the Government servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (7) of Rule 54, be paid such amount (not being the whole) of the pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired, or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, as the competent authority may determine it." This sub-rule deals with a situation where Government servant is placed under suspension pending enquiry against him and later on he is dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired, and that order is set aside by the Court solely on the ground of non-compliance with the requirements of clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution. Where the Government servant is not exonerated, on merits salary and allowances would be payable to him in accordance with sub-rule (7) of FUNDAMENTAL Rule 54. The competent authority may determine the quantum of pay and allowances after giving notice to the Government servant and after considering his representation, if any. Where the Government servant is not exonerated, on merits salary and allowances would be payable to him in accordance with sub-rule (7) of FUNDAMENTAL Rule 54. The competent authority may determine the quantum of pay and allowances after giving notice to the Government servant and after considering his representation, if any. It further provides that the period intervening between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement including the period of suspension preceding the period of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement shall be converted into leave of any kind due to the Government servant. 6. SUB-rule (2) of Rule 54-A deals with situation where the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by the Court solely on the ground of non-compliance with the requirements of clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution. It does not deal with the situation where the termination, dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by Court on merits of the case. . That situation is covered by sub-rule (3) of the Rule which provides that if the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by the Court on the merit of the case, the period intervening between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement including the period of suspension preceding such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and the date of reinstatement shall be treated as duty for all purposes and he shall be paid full pay and allowances for the period, to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended. It is pertinent to note that the sub-rule (2) and (3) are subject to the directions of the Court, if any, as provided by sub-rule (1) of Fundamental Rule 54-A. It is, thus apparent that if while setting aside the order of dismissal or removal the Court issues any directions regarding the payment of salary and allowances, the same would be binding on the competent authority and the Government servant would be entitled to full pay and allowances for the period during which he remained out of employment and the competent authority has no jurisdiction to grant leave to regularise, period of absence or to make deductions from the pay and allowances or to treat the Government servant under suspension. If the Court does not issue any direction and if the order of dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement is set aside by the Court on the ground of denial of opportunity of defence as contemplated under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and if the Government servant is not exonerated on merits, the question of pay and allowances of such a Government servant ought to be determined in accordance with sub-rule (2) read with sub-rule (5) of Rule 54. But, if the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement is set aside on merit by the Court the Government servant on his reinstatement shall be treated on duty for all purposes and he would be entitled to full pay and allowances. This is, however, subject to sub-rule (5) which provides for adjustment of the amount, if any, earned by him through an employment during the period between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and the date of re-instatement. Neither Rule 54 nor Rule 54-A provide for determination of pay and allowances of a Government servant who is re-instated in service in pursuance of the order of a Court setting aside order of termination. Both the Rules deal with the situation where a Government servant is dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired from service on charges framed against him and the order of punishment is set aside either by the departmental authority or Court. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 54 lays down that where the competent authority so reinstates the Government Servant after exonerating him fully the Government Servant shall be paid full pay and allowances subject to the provisions of sub-rule (6) of Rule 54. In such event the period of absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement shall be treated as a period spent on duty under sub-rule (3). It is not necessary to refer to other sub-rules of Rule 54 as they all deal with the situation where a Government servant is reinstated in service by departmental authorities. Rule 54 does not apply to a case where the Government servant is reinstated in service on the setting aside of the order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement by a court of law. Rule 54-A deals with a case where dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement is set aside by Court. It does nor cover a case of termination of service. Rule 54-A deals with a case where dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement is set aside by Court. It does nor cover a case of termination of service. Termination of service simpliciter does not fall within the expression "dismissal", "removal" or "compulsory retirement" as these expressions as occurring in Rule 54-A denote dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement by way of punishment. An innocuous order of termination is not generally by way of punishment. Therefore, where an order of termination is set aside by a Court and the Government servant is reinstated, rule 54-A will not be applicable, instead pay and allowances would be payable in accordance with the directions of the Court. 7. DIFFICULTY may arise if the Court while setting aside the order of termination does not issue any direction. Should the competent authority in such a case pay full salary and allowances to the Government servant? Even though on a literal construction of FR 54-A it does not apply to such a case but in the absence of any other rule providing for fixation of pay and allowances the principles underlying sub-rule (3) of Rule 54-A would apply and the Government servant is entitled to be treated on duty for all purposes including payment of full pay and allowances for the period he was prevented from joining his duties provided he had not undertaken employment some where else during that period. In the alternative on a liberal construction of the expression "removal" occurring in Rule 54-A would include "termination" also. "Removal" in its wide sense includes the expression "termination". If that be so sub-rule (3) would apply and the Government servant will be entitled to full pay and allowances on his reinstatement in pursuance of Court's order setting aside the order of termination of his service. Moreover, when an order of termination is set aside by the Court, it means that the Government servant was wrongly prevented from joining his duties, in such a case the Government servant on his reinstatement is entitled to full pay and allowances and the period of absence shall be treated on duty as held by the Supreme Court in Devendra Pratap's case. 8. IN the instant case, the petitioner's services were terminated without placing him under suspension and without framing any charges or holding enquiry against him. 8. IN the instant case, the petitioner's services were terminated without placing him under suspension and without framing any charges or holding enquiry against him. The respondents' case has all along been that the order of termination was neither dismissal nor removal nor compulsory retirement, instead it was a simple order of termination in accordance with the terms of contract of service. The Court held that the petitioner being a permanent employee his services could not be terminated in the manner it had been done and the petitioner was entitled to the protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The order of termination was set aside by the Court and a direction was issued to treat the petitioner in service and to pay him the emoluments to which he was entitled. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition passed the following order :- "IN the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The impugned notice dated October 5th, 1970, terminating the petitioner's service is quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner still in service and to pay him the emoluments to which he is entitled." The above order was affirmed in special appeal and special leave petition to the Supreme Court. Since the petitioner's termination was set aside by the Court on merits of the case, principles underlying sub-rule (3) of Rule 54-A would be applicable and the petitioner is entitled to full pay and allowances for the period 5-4-71 to 31-7-74. Even otherwise under the direction of the Court the petitioner was entitled to be treated on duty for all purposes during the period of absence and for fully pay and allowances. The direction of the Court "to treat the petitioner in service and to pay the emoluments to which he was entitled" in substance means that the petitioner shall be treated on duty for all purposes and he shall be paid full pay and allowances for the period in dispute. The respondents have no authority in law to regularise the period of absence by granting him leave under Rule 53. They have further no authority to withhold the salary and allowances to which the petitioner was entitled. The respondents have no authority in law to regularise the period of absence by granting him leave under Rule 53. They have further no authority to withhold the salary and allowances to which the petitioner was entitled. The petitioner was already ready and willing to perform his duty but he was prevented from doing so on account of termination order which was declared illegal by this Court with a direction to treat the petitioner on duty for all purposes. The respondents- acted in utter disregard to the order of this Court in regularising the period 5-4-71 to 31-7-74 in accordance with Rules 53 and 54-A (2). The respondents have without any justification with-held the salary and allowances of the petitioner. We are constrained to observe that the Union Government and its officers have adopted a litigous attitude towards the petitioner. When the petitioner's termination was set aside by the Court and the order became final, the respondents should have implemented the Court's order in all respects. By denying the full pay and allowances to the petitioner the respondents have again driven the petitioner to this Court. It is a matter of concern that the petitioner has not been given fair deal and he has been forced to knock the door of this Court again in a matter where the respondents were bound to carry out the order of this Court. The Court's order was clear yet the respondents refused to treat the petitioner on duty for the period he remained out of employment. 9. IN the result, we allow the petition and quash the notice dated 31-12-1975 aswell as the order dated 12-3-1976. We, further hold that the petitioner is entitled to his full pay and allowances for the period 5-4-71 to 31-7-74. The respondents are directed to make the payment to the petitioner at an early date. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Petition allowed.