JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Although this appeal is listed for admission, we take up this appeal for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties having regard to a limited question that arises for consideration. 3. This appeal is directed against the order and judgment dated 7.8.96 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3469/95 [reported in 1996(1) RLR 25 ], to the extent that appellant (writ petitioner) is aggrieved in regard to payment of arrears of salary from the date of filing of the writ petition till the date of judgment passed by learned single Judge. 4. The short facts leading to filing this appeal are as under: 5. The appellant was working as Office Assistant in the office of Commandant, Police Training School, Kishangarh, Ajmer. In the year 1992, he made an application dated 1.5.92 under Rule 244(1) of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.7.92. According to appellant he made such application under mental tension due to adverse family against judgment dated 7.8.96 passed by Single Judge in S.B.C.W.P. No. 3469/95 reported in 1996(1) RLR 25 circumstances, but later on realisation he made another application dated 21.7.92 for withdrawing earlier application dated 1.5.92. According to respondents the voluntary retirement was given to petitioner w.e.f. 31.7.92, but the appellant contested that as before expiry of the notice period the appellant withdrew the said application, as such he should have been continued in service. The appellant's terminal benefits were given to him in 1992 itself. Thereafter, the appellant filed the writ petition on 29.7.95. The writ petition was allowed by learned Single Judge by the order under appeal. However, the appellant was denied the salary from 1.8.92 till the date of judgment under appeal on the ground that the appellant filed the writ petition without giving notice to respondents. Learned Single Judge in the order, has also made clear that the appellant shall be deemed to have continued in service without any break with the right of fixation, seniority and other consequential benefits. 6. Learned Single Judge in the order, has also made clear that the appellant shall be deemed to have continued in service without any break with the right of fixation, seniority and other consequential benefits. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that learned Single Judge has accepted the case of appellant and has allowed the writ petition; the appellant ought not to have been denied the salary from the date of filing of the writ petition till the date of judgment passed by learned Single Judge i.e. 29.7.95 to 7.8.96. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents argued in support of justification of the order under appeal in its entirity. He submitted that the appellant having taken terminal benefits in the year 1992 itself pursuant to acceptance of voluntary retirement on 31.7.92 and having waited for three years and then coming to court by filing the writ petition was not at all entitled for the salary for the period from 31.7.92 till his reinstatement, pursuant to the order dated 7.8.96 passed by learned Single Judge. 8. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for both the parties. The respondents have not challenged the order passed by learned Single Judge in writ petition. It is only the appellant, who has come up before us in appeal to the extent he is aggrieved. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by appellant accepting his case. In the order under appeal it is stated that the appellant shall be deemed to have continued in service without any break with the right of fixation, seniority and other consequential benefits. However, the salary for the period from 1.8.92 till the date of judgment is denied. There was no delay on the part of appellant in approaching the court by filing the writ petition in the year 1995, having accepted the terminal benefits consequent upon to voluntary retirement dated 31.7.92. The case of appellant for the full salary could not have been allowed, but there is no reason as to why the salary at least for the period from 29.7.95. The case of appellant for the full salary could not have been allowed, but there is no reason as to why the salary at least for the period from 29.7.95. i.e. the date of filing of the writ petition till the date of judgment dated 7.8.96 could pot have been allowed, paticularly when as stated above, learned Single Judge himself has given direction that the appellant shall be deemed to have continued in service without any break with the right of fixation, seniority and other consequential benefits. 9. Under these circumstances, the request of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was entitled for the salary at least for the period from 29.7.95 i.e. the date of filing of the writ petition till the date of judgment dated 7.8.96 is acceptable. In this view we pass the following order: 1. The appellant shall be entitled for the salary for the period from 29.7.95, i.e. the date of filing of the writ petition till the date of judgment dated 7.8.96. 2. The respondents while fixing the pension and giving terminal .benefits taking into consideration that the appellant has retired on attaining the age of superannuation, i.e. 31.7.98, shall deduct the pensionary benefits, already given to appellant pursuant to earlier order of voluntary retirement dated 31.7.92. We make it clear that the appellant shall be entitled to pensionary benefits and other consequential benefits on the basis that the appellant has retired on 31.7.98 on attaining the age of superannuation. He shall be entitled for the salary only for the period 29.7.95 to 7.8.96, so far it relates to back wages. Further, it is open to respondents to deduct whatever monetary benefits or other terminal benefits given to appellant pursuant to earlier order of voluntary retirement dated 31.7.92.The special appeal is allowed as indicated above.SPL. Appeal Allowed. *******