Judgment :- This writ petition has been brought forth seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the first respondent in R.P.No.10647/2002-SF dated 6.1.2003 in so far as it negatived the revision of pay scales, payment of provident fund, gratuity and attendant monetary and service benefits and consequently direct the respondents to revise the fixed scale of pay of the petitioner according to the G.O. during the relevant period with arrears. 2. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the counter affidavit are perused. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent also. The petitioner who was appointed as Secretary to the 2nd respondent Bank suffered termination, pursuant to certain charges levelled against him. He challenged the termination before the Labour Court, Madurai wherein the same was set aside and the 2nd respondent was directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all backwages. The judgment of the Labour Court was challenged by the respondents before this Court in W.P.No.16519/1992 and an order was passed by this Court directing the respondents to deposit the backwages, i.e., a sum of Rs.36,225/- and further directed to pay the last drawn wage to the petitioner on or before 10th of every month. When the matter was taken up for final hearing, the 2nd respondent was ready and willing to take back the petitioner into service but sought for a the modification to reduce the payment of backwages. Accordingly, the award of the Labour Court was modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be paid Rs.25,000/- instead of Rs.36,225/- for the relevant period towards backwages with continuity of service from 26.12.1986. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was reinstated on 29.12.1999 and subsequent to the reinstatement in the said post, the petitioner served under the 2nd respondent and retired on 31.10.2001. Therefore, despite the order of this Court in the above writ petition, the request of revision of pay scale, payment of provident fund, gratuity and other attendant monetary and service benefits were negatived by the department and hence, the petitioner seeks the above reliefs. 3. In answer to the above, it is contended by the State that the request for refixation of scale of pay from 1.7.97 as per G.O.Ms.No.131 C.F. and C.P. Department dated 4.6.99, cannot be considered as the petitioner was under dismissal upto 29.12.99. 3. In answer to the above, it is contended by the State that the request for refixation of scale of pay from 1.7.97 as per G.O.Ms.No.131 C.F. and C.P. Department dated 4.6.99, cannot be considered as the petitioner was under dismissal upto 29.12.99. Hence, the requisition of the petitioner has got to be rejected and in so far as the claim of the Provident Fund, gratuity etc. he has to work out his remedy before the concerned authority if he is so eligible for the same. 4. As could be seen from above, the petitioner who was working as Secretary to the 2nd respondent was terminated from service and when the same was challenged before the Labour Court, such termination was set aside with a direction to pay the backwages which amounts to Rs.36,225/- and when the same was challenged by way of writ petition referred to above, at the time of final hearing the only request made by the respondents was that instead of the backwages of Rs.36,225/- awarded by the Labour Court, it shall be reduced to Rs.25,000/-. Therefore, in all other respects, the award of the Labour Court was enforceable. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the writ petition, he was again reinstated in service on 29.12.99 and as could be see from the earlier proceedings, the said reinstatement has got its effect from the date of termination. Under such circumstances, when backwages of Rs.25,000/- was substituted in the place of Rs.36,225/-, the contention of the respondent that since the petitioner was under dismissal till 29.12.99, he is not entitled for refixation of scale of pay, cannot be accepted. It is pertinent to note that this Court in the earlier writ petition has affirmed the order of the Labour Court for reinstatement. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents has got to be negatived. 5. The petitioner is entitled for refixation of pay as asked for in the writ petition. In so far as the Provident Fund and other benefits etc. are concerned, the petitioner has to work out his remedy before the concerned forum by making representation therefor and such authority is directed to consider the same and pass suitable orders expeditiously as possible. The refixation of pay scale and the arrears of pay shall be made within a period of three months herefrom. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. are concerned, the petitioner has to work out his remedy before the concerned forum by making representation therefor and such authority is directed to consider the same and pass suitable orders expeditiously as possible. The refixation of pay scale and the arrears of pay shall be made within a period of three months herefrom. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.