JUDGMENT 1. This appeal, under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.7.1996 in Civil Appeal No. 34-A/96 passed by VIIth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bhopal arising out of judgment and decree dated 2.4.1996 in Civil Suit No. 30-A/91 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class II, Bhopal. 2. The appellant-plaintiff Zafar Hussain Siddique was appointed as a Lecturer of Botany in Safia College, Bhopal in the year 1971. He was granted leave without payment to proceed to Nigeria on condition between the period from 5.9.1981 to 4.9.1983 for taking there job. The condition precedent, however, was that on his return, the appellant shall contribute Rs. 5,000/- towards the development of the Safia College, Bhopal, where he was working. The Safia College was being run by the Safia Education Society, Bhopal -respondent No.2. It is also not disputed that the respondent No.2 receives grant from the State Government and was covered by Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Sikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmchariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 (henceforth 'the Adhiniyam'). According to the allegations made in the plaint, it was held that initial leave granted to the appellant was extended upto 1985. It was claimed by the appellant that when he came back to Bhopal in September, 1985, after completing the full period of leave, he was not permitted to join the duty in the Safia College, Bhopal by the respondents. His request to the State Government, which was defendant No. 3 in the suit, was not of any avail. Thereafter, the appellant filed the civil suit for declaration that he was in service with effect from September, 1985 because the respondents have arbitrarily denied him his right to continue in service even though he was ready and willing to pay Rs. 5,000/- as per initial condition of grant of leave without payment. It was claimed that instead, the respondents demanded Rs. 25,000/- and, therefore, he was not allowed to join the duties. 3. The respondents did not dispute that the appellant was permitted to go abroad on leave without payment from 5.9.1981 to 4.9.1983. However, it was claimed by the respondents that thereafter his leave was not extended and, therefore, the appellant wilfully remained absent from his duties without permission of the competent authority i.e. the governing body of the Safia College. 3. The respondents did not dispute that the appellant was permitted to go abroad on leave without payment from 5.9.1981 to 4.9.1983. However, it was claimed by the respondents that thereafter his leave was not extended and, therefore, the appellant wilfully remained absent from his duties without permission of the competent authority i.e. the governing body of the Safia College. Thereafter, it was claimed that the services of the appellant were terminated with effect from 1.4.1985 and the information was sent to the State Government, the defendant No.3 in the suit It was also stated that Rs. 5,000/-, as per the condition of grant of leave, were not offered by the appellant and, therefore, the appellant had no right to remain in service. 4. The trial Court decreed the suit holding inter alia that the termination of the services of the appellant with effect from 5th September, 1983 as per Ex. D/8 was illegal, as it was in violation of section 6(a)(iii) of the Adhiniyam. It was held that the procedure prescribed as per the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Sikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karamchariyon Ko Padachyut Karne Sewa Se Hatane Sambandhi Prakriya) Niyam, 1983 (Henceforth 'the Niyam') was not followed. Having held that the order of termination of the appellant was bad in law, the trial Court further held that the appellant shall be deemed to be in service and consequently he was entitled to get all the consequential benefits attached to his post with effect from the year 1988. This was so done because the appellant admitted that during pendency of the suit, he again went to Nigeria and remained there till 1988. 5. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge held that termination of services of the appellant was illegal and, therefore, he was entitled to declaration that he is liable to be reinstated. It was, however, held that the appellant was not entitled to benefit from January, 1988 but from the date of the decree of the trial Court i.e. from 1.4.1996, and accordingly the appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was partly allowed. 6. This Court, by order dated 9.5.1997, admitting this appeal, framed the following substantial question of law :-- "Whether the lower appellate Court was right in reversing the decree passed by the trial Court on the quantum of salary?" 7. 1 and 2 was partly allowed. 6. This Court, by order dated 9.5.1997, admitting this appeal, framed the following substantial question of law :-- "Whether the lower appellate Court was right in reversing the decree passed by the trial Court on the quantum of salary?" 7. The above question of law was framed by this Court at the instance of the appellant and it needs a slight modification. In fact, the decree of the trial Court was not reversed by the lower appellate Court on quantum of salary and, therefore, the question of law framed by this Court on 9.5.1997 is reframed as follows :-- "Whether the lower appellate Court was right in reversing the decree passed by the trial Court on the question of grant of consequential benefits with effect from the date of decree of the trial Court and not from January, 1988 ?" 8. The second question of law was framed by this Court at the instance of the respondents, who filed the cross-objection, by order dated 14.9.1998, as follows :-- "Whether the two Courts below erred in law in holding that the termination of service of the plaintiff is not in accordance with law?" 9. Learned counsel for the respondents, who had filed the cross-objection, was not able to challenge the order of the Court below to the effect that there was violation of section 6(a)(iii) of the Adhiniyam and the provisions of the Niyam. Further when questioned by the Court, whether Ex. D/8 was ever served upon the appellant ?, she was unable to reply as there is no evidence on record whether a copy of Ex.D/8 was ever sent to the appellant on the address given by him at Bhopal or at Nigeria. Under these circumstances, this Court comes to the conclusion that an order passed totally in disregard of the statutory rule framed under the Adhiniyam and also without proof that it was ever served on the appellant, the respondents cannot claim that the services of the appellant were validly terminated. Accordingly, the question of law; framed on 14.9.1998, is decided against the respondents and in favour of the appellant and the cross-objection filed by the respondents is hereby dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the question of law; framed on 14.9.1998, is decided against the respondents and in favour of the appellant and the cross-objection filed by the respondents is hereby dismissed. 10. As far as the question of consequential benefits is concerned, this Court fails to understand why the lower appellate Court granted consequential benefits with effect from date of the decree of the trial Court. The appellant had himself volunteered to say that he was not in India till January, 1988 and he was otherwise gainfully employed in Nigeria arid, therefore, he was not claiming any benefit. The trial Court, therefore, directed, on the admission of the appellant, that he was entitled to get the consequential benefits from January, 1988. The lower appellate Court has, however, not given any explicit reason for interfering with the conclusion of the trial Court and this Court is of the view that when a person is reinstated, he is entitled to all the consequential benefits flowing from the order of the reinstatement in a civil suit. This view is supported by the decision in the case of Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in AIR 1962 SC 1334 . In that case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held at para 11 as follows :-- Para 11: "xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx This rule has no application to cases like the present in which the dismissal of a public servant is declared invalid by a civil Court and he is reinstated. This rule, undoubtedly enables the State Government to fix the pay of a public servant whose dismissal is set aside in a departmental appeal. But in this case the order of dismissal was declared invalid in a civil suit. The effect of the decree of the civil suit was that the appellant was never to be deemed to have been lawfully dismissed from service and the order of reinstatement was superfluous. The effect of the adjudication of the civil Courts is to declare that the appellant had been wrongfully prevented from attending to his duties as a public servant. It would not in such a contingency be open to the authority to deprive the public servant of the remuneration which he would have earned had he been permitted to work." 11. The effect of the adjudication of the civil Courts is to declare that the appellant had been wrongfully prevented from attending to his duties as a public servant. It would not in such a contingency be open to the authority to deprive the public servant of the remuneration which he would have earned had he been permitted to work." 11. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is hereby set aside and that of the trial Court is hereby restored. This appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. No costs.