Judgment 1. The petitioners were appointed as A.N.M. along with others on 15th March, 1990 in pursuance of which they joined. While so functioning, a general wireless message was issued on 30th April 90 cancelling such appointments. Against the wireless message, the petitioners filed writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 5410/92 along with others, which was disposed of along with other writ petitions on 3rd October, 1994. It was ordered to consider the cases of petitioners against the existing vacancies in terms with the observations made in the said case. Thereafter, without issuance of any formal order of reinstatement, notices were issued on 18th June, 1991 and formal orders of terminations were issued, on 24th December, 1991. Against the said subsequent orders of termination, the petitioners moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No.2616/94 along with others, which was allowed on 1st December, 1994. In terms with the Courts order, the petitioners having reinstated, are continuing in the services and receiving salary. Grievance has been made that the salary of the intervening period during which the petitioners were forced to remain out of service, has not yet been paid. 2. Reliance has been placed in the case of Manju Kumari Srivastava and othes, similarly situated A.N.M. as reported in 2000(1) P.L.J.R. 267 , wherein the Court allowed full salary of the intervening period. 3. If an order of termination is challenged in a court of law and is set aside, it is always open to the Court to determine as to whether the applicant is entitled for arrears of salary of the intervening period or not. The Court may direct to pay part of the salary or may refuse to allow salary of such intervening period. However if no such specific decision is given by a Court of law, in that case, the authorities are bound to pay full salary of the intervening period during which a person was forced to remain out of service. 4. In the aforesaid background, as this Court while allowing the writ petition of petitioners, have not debarred them from arrears of salary on reinstatement, hold that the petitioners are entitled for full salary for the period they were forced to remain out of service. 5. 4. In the aforesaid background, as this Court while allowing the writ petition of petitioners, have not debarred them from arrears of salary on reinstatement, hold that the petitioners are entitled for full salary for the period they were forced to remain out of service. 5. Accordingly, I direct the Respondents to pay full salary for the period the petitioners were forced to remain out of sarvice because of one or other termination orders, within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 6. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.