Judgment :- V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. The appellant herein challenges the judgment of the learned signal Judge dismissing his writ petition whereby he had claimed regularisation of his service and other benefits. The learned single Judge took the view that, since in the earlier writ petition this Court had not granted relief, the petitioner could not have claimed that relief by way of a fresh writ petition. It will be necessary for us to state a few facts to appreciate the controversy involved herein. The petitioner was a teacher in the respondent school called N. S. Krishnan Aided Elementary School, Kattukottai Karur. This school is an elementary school and is receiving 100% grants. The petitioner was suspended on account of few charges on 23-3-1978. A charge sheet was served upon him on 22-4-1978. After the enquiry was over a permission was sought from the concerned authority in the Education Department of his dismissal. However the said approval was declined by the District Educational Officer. It seems that against that order, an appeal came to be entertained by the Chief Educational Officer, who after holding some enquiry granted the approval on 2-1-1979. Against this order of granting the approval and resultant termination on the basis thereof, the petitioner filed C.M.A. No. 25 of 1979 before the Sub-Court, Thanjavur. However that appeal came to be dismissed by the Sub-Judge by an order dated 7-5-1980. The order of the Chief Educational Officer and the confirming order passed by the learned Sub-Judge came to be challenged by way of writ petition No. 5429 of 1980 in September, 1980. The writ petition pended for six long years and was ultimately allowed on 22-7-1986. The Management filed a writ appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge allowing the appeal by which the learned single Judge has set aside the two orders viz. the order granting approval to the termination or dismissal as the case may be, and the confirming order of the learned Sub-Judge. The writ appeal also came to be dismissed on 5-7-1989 and ultimately the petitioner was reinstated in service on 21-8-1989 on a minimum scale.He however was not given the salary which stood increased in the mean time, nor was he given any advantage of the increments which he otherwise would have been entitled to. The writ appeal also came to be dismissed on 5-7-1989 and ultimately the petitioner was reinstated in service on 21-8-1989 on a minimum scale.He however was not given the salary which stood increased in the mean time, nor was he given any advantage of the increments which he otherwise would have been entitled to. He therefore filed the present writ petition No. 3912 of 1992, wherein he prayed for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling the entire records of the proceedings in D.Mu. No. 17380/02/90 dated 12-9-1990 and O.Mu. No. 20728/02/90 dated 24-10-1990 and the proceedings of the first respondent dated 31-12-1990, 12-9-1990 and 24-10-1990. In his affidavit, the petitioner had pointed out that after the reinstatement the petitioner had represented to the to the authorities for regularisation of the period suspension and in that, he had addressed the Chief Educational Officer. But, the Chief Educational Officer by his order dated 12-9-1990 had rejected the claim on the ground there was no provision in Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973. The petitioner also pointed out in the affidavit further that he had again approached the second respondent and based his claim on the G.O.Ms. No. 544. Personal and Administrative Reforms (Fr. iii) dated 19-6-1967. However, the second respondent by his proceedings dated 24-10-1990, again rejected the claim. He then claims that he approached the first respondent, the District Educational Officer, Thanjavur for relief. However, the first respondent also returned the requisition on 30-12-1990 holding that there was no provision in the Rules for such regularisation of payments. It is against all this that writ petition came to be filed challenging all these aforementioned orders. The learned single Judge took a view that the petitioner had filed an earlier writ petition in W.P. No. 5429 of 1980 and in that, the Court had quashed the termination order. The learned Judge however found that there was no observation regarding any backwages and the petitioner also did not prefer any writ appeal seeking for the relief of getting the backwages. It was observed by the learned single Judge that, though the petitioner was reinstated, he was not given any backwages or attendant benefits and therefore the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits claimed by him. It is against this judgment that the present appeal is filed.The learned Senior Counsel Mr. It was observed by the learned single Judge that, though the petitioner was reinstated, he was not given any backwages or attendant benefits and therefore the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits claimed by him. It is against this judgment that the present appeal is filed.The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Venkatachalapathy appearing on behalf of the appellant point out that there was no question of any relief being rejected or refused by the earlier Court. All that the petitioner had sought for was the quashing of the orders passed by the Sub-Court and the appellate authority by which the approval for termination was granted. The learned Senior Counsel argues that once the reinstatement was ordered there would ordinarily be no question of denying the attendant benefits and the petitioner could always be said to have been entitled to those benefits which include the regularisation of his pay and also the backwages. The learned Counsel relies on Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules and pointed out that under those Rules it is provided that "When a Government Servant who has been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired is reinstated as result of an appeal or review, the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government Servant for the period of his absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement as the case may be and whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty." * The learned Senior Counsel also points out that the question was only of the regularisation, because the petitioner was rightly reinstated. He also points out that once he was directed to be reinstated, it was obvious that he should have been given all the attendant benefits because he was not allowed to work for relevant years for any fault of his own. As against this the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Management suggest that the earlier Court had not granted any such relief and therefore such relief was rightly not ordered in favour of the appellant. As against this the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Management suggest that the earlier Court had not granted any such relief and therefore such relief was rightly not ordered in favour of the appellant. The learned Counsel further very fairly contended that he had no objection if the regularisation of the pay structure of the petitioner was ordered and the Government was directed to pay his salary in the light of that regularisation as also the backwages.The learned Government pleader pointed out that in the place of the petitioner one other person was appointed during the interregnum when the petitioner was out of service. The learned Government pleader therefore says that, if the backwages are allowed at this stage for the period when the petitioner was not working, the Government would be required to pay two salaries against one post as the Government had already paid the concerned person the salary which ordinarily would have gone to the petitioner. The learned Government pleader further says that the petitioner would not be entitled to the other benefits also as those benefits have not been granted to him in the earlier judgment. Before considering the rival claims we must observe that the petitioner's demand is on two aspects. (i) The backwages for the period that he was deprived of his service, and (ii) The regularisation of his service which would entitle him to get the other benefits including the increased salary and also the increased pension. We will deal with the first aspect first. For examining as to whether the petitioner was entitled to the backwages, we first examined the petition made by the petitioner to the authorities. It must be said that the petitioner has restricted the petition to the four prayers. The first prayer is about the fixation of salary by regularising the period. The second is for treating the 12 years interregnum period to be on duty. By the third request the petitioner claims increased gratuity, medical benefits and the other attendant benefits by being regularised. By the fourth request the petitioner simply reiterated that under Section 23 of the Act he is entitled to all the benefits. Very significantly enough, we do not find any claim having been made of his backwages. By the third request the petitioner claims increased gratuity, medical benefits and the other attendant benefits by being regularised. By the fourth request the petitioner simply reiterated that under Section 23 of the Act he is entitled to all the benefits. Very significantly enough, we do not find any claim having been made of his backwages. Perhaps the reason why the petitioner did not claim the backwages was that the petitioner had given in writing to the Management, that he will not claim the backwages as against the Management but would only claim them against the Government. Unfortunately it is also a fact that while the petitioner was not on the job the Government had already appointed one more Headmaster in his place and that Headmaster was paid fully. Now, if the petitioner is to be awarded the backwages it would be purely a case where the Government would be required to pay two sets of salaries against one post. It is true that the petitioner has succeeded in the sense that the charges against him though serious have not been held to be provide by the authorities. It is also true that ordinarily his reinstatement should have been followed by the backwages. But here under the peculiar circumstances the backwages cannot ordinarily follow because in the place of the petitioner someone else had not only worked but has also been paid. We therefore confine ourselves only to recommend to the Government that the Government may consider the peculiar circumstances in this matter and decide about the backwages by ordering any specific amount in favour of the petitioner in the light of the circumstances.Now the second aspect of regularisation and the benefits. As regards these the petitioner will be clearly entitled to be regularised. There would be no question of his "claiming" regularisation or the said regularisation being rejected by the Court. After all if the petitioner has been reinstated in the year 1989 he would have been entitled to have his salary properly fixed and regularised. His reinstatement as also his exoneration from the enquiry would mean that the petitioner must be treated to be on duty and on that basis all his increments should also be calculated. We therefore have no doubt that the petitioner would be entitled to the regularisation of the salary with all the increment which he would have otherwise earned. His reinstatement as also his exoneration from the enquiry would mean that the petitioner must be treated to be on duty and on that basis all his increments should also be calculated. We therefore have no doubt that the petitioner would be entitled to the regularisation of the salary with all the increment which he would have otherwise earned. Needless to mention that he will also be treated to be on duty but shall not be entitled to be paid the whole backwages for which we have already given separate direction to the Government. Undoubtedly he would also be entitled to the other attendant benefits. We are of the clear opinion that the learned single Judge has erred in not awarding those reliefs to which the petitioner was even otherwise entitled to because of his reinstatement in the service. Thus the appeal succeeds in the light of the observation made by us. As far as the considerations of backwages is concerned the Government shall decide the question as soon as possible within a year from today. The judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed No. of costs. Consequently connected C. M.P. No. 5814 of 2000 is closed.