JUDGMENT Sreedharan, J. 1. When C.M.P. No. 4181/91 came up for orders, I heard counsel appearing on either side in detail. I am disposing of the Original Petition. 2. Petitioner was compulsorily retired under R.60A of Part I K.S.R. by order, dated 5th September 1975. Finally the respondent revoked the order and reinstated him in service by order, dated 6th December 1977. On 25th October 1978 Government issued orders regarding the regularisation of the period of absence of persons like the petitioner who were compulsorily retired and subsequently reinstated in service. As per that, those officers who retired before the issue of orders of revocation of the compulsory retirement would be given full pay and allowances. In the case of officers like the petitioner who continued in service were not given any pay and allowance. The period of their absence was ordered to be regularised by granting leave without allowance. That order was challenged in O.P. No. 710/78. The impugned Government order was quashed by this court. State took up the matter in appeal, W.A. 64/80. The Division Bench directed the Government to re-examine the entire issue afresh. Petitioner filed O.P. 329/79 challenging the very same order. That petition was disposed of in the light of the observation made by the Division Bench in W.A. 64/80. After reconsideration, respondent passed Ext. P-4 order, dated 17th March 1982 on the same terms as the order on 24th October 1978. Petitioner challenged Ext. P-4 in O.P. 7357/82. Before the disposal of that O.P. Ext. P-4 was quashed in O.P. 4012/82. Thereafter respondent passed another order, dated 3rd March 1984 reiterating the stand that the service between the date of compulsory retirement and reinstatement would be treated only as leave without allowance. That order, dated 3rd March 1984 is marked as Ext. P-5 in the case. That order, was also quashed in O.P. 7357/82. The respondent was again directed to consider the petitioner's case with reference to R.56 of the Kerala Service Rules. Government have now passed Ext. P-7 order, dated 22nd December 1989 declining the request of the petitioner for arrears of salary for the period during which he was illegally kept out of service. 3. On 29th January 1990 this court passed the following order in C.M.P. No. 1183/90. Government have now passed Ext. P-7 order, dated 22nd December 1989 declining the request of the petitioner for arrears of salary for the period during which he was illegally kept out of service. 3. On 29th January 1990 this court passed the following order in C.M.P. No. 1183/90. ''Respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's case with reference to R.56 of the Kerala Service Rules as directed by a Division Bench of this court in O.P. No. 7357/82 and pass appropriate orders within three weeks." In pursuance to that, Government have issued Ext. P-8 order, dated 31st February 1990 holding that the petitioner is not entitled to pay and allowance during the period in which he was out of service, namely from 13th September 1976 to 7th December 1977. 4. Though notice on this petition was accepted by the respondent way back in February 1990, no counter affidavit has been filed. One Sri K. Raja Raja Varma, a person who was compulsorily retired like the petitioner herein and who was reinstated subsequently, approached this court for getting the salary for the period during which he was illegally kept out of service by moving O.P. 5252/86. While disposing of that O.P. by judgment, dated 22nd August 1990, a learned Single Judge of this Court observed: "The orders impugned are liable to be quashed for another reason as well. Ext. P-13, dated 25th October 1978 is an order by which Government directed payment of full pay and allowances to those who had been compulsorily retired, but who could not be reinstated as they were superannuated before the issuance of the order of revocation of their compulsory retirement. This order Ext. P-12 has been dealt with by the earlier Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 64/80. Eradi, C. J. speaking on behalf of the bench stated that they were in agreement with the learned Single Judge that this order suffered from the vice of arbitrary discrimination. In other words, the Division Bench declared that Ext. P-13 made a discrimination between persons who were superannuated before the order of revocation of the compulsory retirement was passed and those who had not been so superannuated and rejoined duty. The attempted explanation for such distinction in the counter affidavit filed in. O.P. No. 5538/86 is not satisfactory. At any rate, I am bound by the observation of the Division Bench. The attempted explanation for such distinction in the counter affidavit filed in. O.P. No. 5538/86 is not satisfactory. At any rate, I am bound by the observation of the Division Bench. But since the grant of full pay and allowances to those who were superannuated before rejoining duty is not under challenge, the consequence of Ext. P-13 being declared discriminatory is to direct that persons like the petitioner also be given the full pay and allowances to which they will be entitled just as in the case of those benefited by Ext. P-13. In other words, the order Ext. P-13 limiting the benefit to those superannuated before rejoining duty is bad and it is to be declared that this benefit will be extended to those who rejoined duty on revocation of the order of compulsory retirement as well. For this reason also the orders impugned denying full pay and allowances to the petitioners have to be quashed." Government took, up that judgment in appeal in W.A. 871/90, While disposing of that appeal the Division Bench observed as follows: "One important aspect, on the basis of which the final orders (Exts. P-15 and P-18 in the two O.Ps.) cannot bear scrutiny, has been adverted to by the learned Single Judge, in Para.24 of the judgment and that is Ext. P-13 proceedings of the Government dated 25th October 1978. Initially the Government passed an order dated 29th October 1977. It was followed up by Ext. P-13 dated 23rd October 1978. By order dated 29th October 1977, the Government gave certain concessions to employees who were retired from service under R.60A Part I of K. S. R. but could not be reinstated because of superannuation in the meanwhile. It was stated therein that in respect of such persons who have superannuated before the orders of revocation of their compulsory retirement on compassionate grounds, the period when they were out of service will be treated as on duty and they will be given the full pay to which they would have been entitled, had they not been compulsorily retired, together with the admissible allowances. In relation to others whose orders of compulsory retirement were revoked on sympathetic grounds and reinstated in the service, their absence from duty will be regularised by granting leave without allowance. In relation to others whose orders of compulsory retirement were revoked on sympathetic grounds and reinstated in the service, their absence from duty will be regularised by granting leave without allowance. It was stated that for the persons coming under the latter group, the pay and allowance will be paid to them only from the date on which they assumed charge of the duties of the post after reinstatement. By Ext. P-13, dated 25th October 1978, the directions contained in the order, dated 29th October 1977 (Ext. P-9 in O.P. No. 5253 of 1986) were considerably modified. The Government directed payment of full pay and allowances to those who had been compulsorily retired, but who could not be reinstated as they were superannuated before the issuance of the order of revocation of their compulsory retirement. The scope of Ext. P-13 order came up for consideration before a Bench of this court in W.A. 64/1980. It was found to be arbitrary. It discriminated between persons who were superannuated before the order of revocation of the compulsory retirement was passed and those who had not been so superannuated and rejoined duty. The grant of full pay and allowances to those who were superannuated before rejoining duty was not challenged thereafter. So, the legal effect flowing from the decision of this court in W.A. No. 64/80 is that persons like the petitioners in the Original Petitions should be given full pay and allowances to which they will be entitled to as in the case of persons who were benefited by Ext. P-13. The benefit will be extended to those who rejoined duty on revocation of the order of compulsory retirement as well. The petitioners in the Original Petitions will come within this category. The learned Single Judge held that on the basis of this vital decision, the final orders impugned Ext. P-15 in O.P. no. 5538 of 1986 and Ext. P-13 in O.P. No. 5252 of 1986 deserve to be quashed. On this basis also, the above orders were annulled. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in giving effect to the decision in W.A. No. 64/80 which toned down Ext. P-13 order, dated 25th October 1978 and the result whereof was to extent the benefit even to those persons who were compulsorily retired and rejoined duty on revocation of the order of compulsory retirement". We are of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in giving effect to the decision in W.A. No. 64/80 which toned down Ext. P-13 order, dated 25th October 1978 and the result whereof was to extent the benefit even to those persons who were compulsorily retired and rejoined duty on revocation of the order of compulsory retirement". The decision rendered by the Bench in W.A. 871/90 applies on all fours to the facts of this case. Petitioner who was retired under R.60A of Part I K.S.R. on 5th September 1975 was reinstated in service by order, dated 6th December 1977. In pursuance to that order he entered service on 19th January 1978. Petitioner claims full salary and allowance for the period from 5th September 1975 till 19th January 1978. As per the law stated by the Division Bench respondent is bound to pay him the full salary and allowance for the period during which be was illegally kept out of service. Since the entire salary and allowances were illegally denied to him, in spite of the authoritative pronouncements of this court in earlier petitions, petitioner is entitled to interest on that amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Respondent is directed to pay the entire salary and allowances for the period from 5th September 1975 till 19th January 1978 together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The Original Petition is allowed in the above terms.