Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Both the petitions filed by petitioner are being disposed of by common order at joint request of the parties. 2. CWP No. 4321/1997 (“ former petition”) has been filed by petitioner for grant of consequential benefits in view of his reinstatement in service. After he retired on attaining age of superannuation on 31.07.2000, since respondents did not release terminal benefits, petitioner sent his application to this Court and it was registered as letter petition - CWP No. 637/2004 (“latter petition”). Hence, both former as well as letter petitions are heard together. 3. Facts, in brief , leading to the grievance raised by petitioner are noticed out of former petition. Petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk vide order dated 11.05.1967 (Annexure-5) and made permanent vide order dated 011.1968 (Annexure-6) and since then continued, but was dismissed from services vide order dated 010.1972, which was challenged by raising an industrial dispute. After examining the dispute, learned Labour Court passed an Award on 20.09.1980 setting aside the order of dismissal and accordingly directed respondents to reinstate him in service with 25% back-wages from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement. Pursuant to Award (Supra), petitioner submitted his joining report on 211.1980 (Annexure-2) but was not allowed to join. 4. The Award was challenged by respondents in CWP No. 1081/1981 wherein this Court passed an interim order on 23.04.1982 suspending operation of the Award subject to the condition that respondents herein would deposit a sum of Rs. 30,000/-before the Labour Court for payment to the petitioner herein (for convenience, “workman”) on his furnishing a security in equal amount undertaking to refund it as per final order in CWP No. 1081/1981. Pending CWP No. 1081/1981, the workman moved misc. application under Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act”) on 21.08.1984 with the prayer to pay full wages last drawn by him from the date of Award with full arrears. On application, ibid, this Court vide order dated 23.09.1987 directed respondents to pay full wages last drawn by workman with effect from 21.08.1984 within two months. CWP No. 1081/1981 filed by respondents (supra), was dismissed vide order dated 23.03.1995 (Annexure-3). Petitioner again submitted joining report (Annexure-2) on 25.04.1995 but was not permitted to join. 5. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 46/1995 was filed by respondents which came to be dismissed on merits vide order dated 16.01.1996 (Annexure-4). CWP No. 1081/1981 filed by respondents (supra), was dismissed vide order dated 23.03.1995 (Annexure-3). Petitioner again submitted joining report (Annexure-2) on 25.04.1995 but was not permitted to join. 5. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 46/1995 was filed by respondents which came to be dismissed on merits vide order dated 16.01.1996 (Annexure-4). Petitioner further submitted joining report (Annexure-3) on 11.03.1996 but was asked by respondents on 13.05.1996 to join duty and he joined duty on that day. After working for about four years, petitioner retired from service on attaining age of superannuation on 31.07.2000. Since, respondents failed to release consequential benefits in view of Award of reinstatement passed by learned Labour Court -affirmed by this Court, petitioner filed former petition (4321/1997) and even after retirement from service when his retiral benefits were completely withheld, he approached to this Court by way of letter petition (CWP 637/2004). Hence, these petitions. 6. Counsel for petitioner has urged that once the order of dismissal has been set aside by learned Labour Court and petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service, as a consequence whereof , he became entitled for all service benefits including continuity in service except back-wages which remained restricted to 25% and by virtue of dismissal order having held to be non-est, he became entitled for continuity in service from initial appointment dated 11.05.1967 till retirement on 31.07.2000, for reckoning total service rendered for computation of retiral benefits under Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Employees Service (Pension) Rules, 1995 (“Pension Rules”). 7. Counsel for petitioner further urged that one Shri Madhav Prasad Sharma, who was junior to him, had reached to the post of Supervisor by way of promotion, and as such had he been reinstated in service forthwith in terms of Award of Labour Court dated 20.09.1980, he would have also been considered for promotion at least to the post of Supervisor on which his junior, ibid, was promoted by the respondents. 8. 8. Counsel for petitioner also submitted that the Award was passed by learned Labour Court on 20.09.1980 directing respondent to reinstate petitioner in service with 25% back-wages - as a legal corollary whereof he is at least entitled for full salary and other service benefits flowing from Award of reinstatement from 20.09.1980 onwards till he was permitted to join duty on 13.05.1996, besides grant of selection scale on completion of 9/18/27 years service from the date (11.05.1967) of initial appointment, which has also not been considered by respondents depriving him of such benefits, to which he became legally entitled for. 9. Respondents have filed in both the petitions. Counsel for respondents employer submitted that Shri Madhav Prasad Sharma could not be said to be junior to petitioner as he was not employee of Krishi Upaj Mandi, Dholpur and, therefore, petitioner cannot be held at par with Shri Madhav Pd. Sharma. 10. As regards release of back-wages or arrears of salary pursuant to the Award of reinstatement dated 20.09.1980, only objection raised by Counsel for respondents is that if petitioner disputes all that has been paid then only appropriate alternative remedy available was to file application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act, where alone, it could have been proved that he was not engaged to any gainful employment pendente lis. That apart, petitioner has already been paid last drawn wages on his application under Section 17-B of the Act. 11. Counsel for respondents also urged that as petitioner was not a regular employee, when he was dismissed from service in 1972 and after he had joined service on 13.05.1996 he worked only for four years and retired on attaining age of superannuation in July, 2000 as such was not entitled for any pension under the Rules of 1995. 12. I have considered rival contentions of both the parties and with their assistance, perused material on record. From record, this fact remained undisputed that petitioner was initially appointed as LDC and was confirmed vide order dated 01/11/68 and was drawing salary in regular pay scale at the time when he was dismissed from services vide order dated 010.1972. It is also not in dispute that dismissal was set aside by learned Labour Court vide Award dated 20.09.1980 with the direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with 25% back-wages. It is also not in dispute that dismissal was set aside by learned Labour Court vide Award dated 20.09.1980 with the direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with 25% back-wages. Thus viewed, once order of dismissal stood set aside and was ordered to be reinstated in service with 25% back-wages, as a consequence whereof , unless there was negative direction by Labour Court in respect of continuity in service for intervening period from the date of dismissal till award of reinstatement, the petitioner became entitled for continuity in service for intervening period (supra), especially when Labour Court granted reinstatement and not re-employment; and in other words, continuity in service as a consequence of reinstatement was impliedly granted by Labour Court. 13. That apart, undisputably, the Award of reinstatement dated 20.09.1980 passed by Labour Court has been affirmed by learned Single Judge on 23.03.1995 so also by the Division Bench of this Court on 16.01.1996 and pursuant whereto, he was also not permitted to join duty despite his persistent applications submitted firstly on 211.1980 (Annexure-2 in CWP 637/2004), Secondly on 25.04.1995 (Annexure-2 in CWP 4321/1997) and finally on 11.03.1996 (Annexure-3 in CWP 4321/1997) and only on 13.05.1996, he was allowed to join duty. In fact, reinstatement under the Award which ordinarily should have been permitted immediately after its passing but for all practical purposes, petitioner was reinstated in service on 13.05.1996. 14. Further, it is not in dispute that pending CWP No. 1081/1981 of respondents, on application moved by petitioner under Section 17-B of the Act, this Court vide order dated 23.09.1987, directed respondents to pay full wages last drawn by workman with effect from 21.08.1984, and even CWP 1081/1981 filed by respondents was finally dismissed vide order dated 23.03.1995 (Annexure-3). 15. This Court while deciding petitioners application under Section 17-B of the Act vide order dated 23.09.1987 held as under:-“In our opinion, therefore, the language used in the proviso does not militate against construction placed by us on words, “employed in any establishment” used in the main part of Section 17-B, and that the said words mean that the workman must be employed as an employee in an establishment and a workman who is engaged in a personal private activity to sustain himself cannot be said to be employed in any establishment for the purpose of Section 17-B of the Act. In the present case, it is not disputed that respondent No. 3 was not employed as a an employee in any establishment and all that has been shown is that he is running two tempos on hire and that he has obtained loan from the Bank which is not repaid as yet and that he has some agricultural land. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that respondent No. 3 is entitled to protection of Section 17-B of the Act and he is entitled to be paid the wages that were last drawn by him during pendency of the present writ petition.” (Emphasis added) 16. Thus, even after Award of reinstatement dated 20.09.1980, the issue of entitlement of last drawn wages during pendency of writ petition filed by respondents against aforesaid Award in 1980, stands finally settled by virtue of order dated 23.09.1987 passed by this Court in terms of Section 17-B of the Act. In this view of matter, once petitioner is held entitled for protection of Section 17-B of the Act to be paid the wages last drawn by him during pendency of the present writ petition, for intervening period from the date of its filing till decision of writ petition, and considering entire matter which is not disputed between the parties, in my opinion, mere break in service as a result of termination from 010.1972 till final adjudication of dispute before Court of law or till joining on re-instatement, cannot be considered to be break in service and in view of Award of reinstatement in service passed by Labour Court, which attained finality, petitioner shall be deemed in continuation of service without any break and thereby became entitled to all other benefits flowing from the award of reinstatement in accordance with law, as if his services were never terminated. In Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2002 (92) FLR 838, similar dispute came to arose and the Apex Court observed as under:-“Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on examining the material on record, we fail to understand how the continuity of service could be denied once the plaintiff is directed to be reinstated in service on setting aside the order of termination. It is not a case of fresh appointment but it is a case of reinstatement. It is not a case of fresh appointment but it is a case of reinstatement. That being the position, direction of the High Court that the plaintiff will not get continuity of service cannot be sustained and we set aside that part of the impugned order.” 17. It was a case where services of plaintiff stood terminated, against which he filed suit for declaring termination null and void but the suit was dismissed but lower appellate Court on reappreciation of the material on record, held order of termination illegal and consequently directed to reinstate the plaintiff in service. 18. In view of what has been laid down by the Apex Court, it stands well settled that once reinstatement has been ordered, meaning thereby, it impliedly includes continuity of service. In present case, it is pertinent to mention that after award of reinstatement passed by Labour Court on 20.09.1980 which attained finality, as discussed above, and petitioner was reinstated in service by permitting him to join on 13.05.1996, which itself , entail that he has been deemed to be in continuity of service, as if order of dismissal dated 010.1972 has never been passed against him. 19. However, once petitioner has been deemed to be in continuity of service he became entitled to reckon his total length of service from 11.05.1967 till he attained age of superannuation upto 31.07.2000, of almost 33 years service with respondents for entitlement of pension besides other retiral benefits in terms of Pension Rules 1995. 20. Only objection raised by respondents with regard to grant of pension is that petitioner is not entitled to pension so also other retiral benefits under Pension Rules for the reason that he has rendered service only for the period of four years from 13.05.1996 till 31.07.2000 and that apart, he had failed to submit requisite option form provided under the Rules and as he was temporary employee of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti will not make him entitled for grant of pension or retiral benefits. Such an objection does not hold good, even on facts, once I have arrived at the conclusion that petitioner be deemed to be in continuity of service as a result of Award of reinstatement (supra), he rendered 33 years service, and that apart, this fact is totally incorrect from record that petitioner was a temporary employee whereas he was appointed in regular pay scale vide order dated 11.05.1967 and was made permanent vide order dated 011.1968 (Annexure-6 of CWP 4321/1997) which has not been disputed by respondents in their reply, and so far as objection of respondents about the petitioner having failed to fill up requisite option, from under Pension Rules is concerned, in my opinion, when the petitioner was not allowed to join the service despite award of reinstatement in his favour till 13.05.1996, occasion to fill option form has not been there and after joining service, he filled up his option also on 110.1996 (Annexure-6 in CWP 637/2004) and once all pre-requisite condition for grant of pension and other terminals benefits were complied with, withholding such benefits in my opinion, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India so also of principles of natural justice. 21. As regards grant of arrears and further promotion to the post of Supervisor, which has accrued from award of reinstatement, during intervening period till reinstatement was given effect to on 13.05.1996, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has substantially been paid under Section 17-B of the Act and apart from it, petitioner has not pleaded that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere during aforesaid intervening period and he had an alternative remedy to file application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act where the respondents would have an opportunity to justify their stand as to whether he is entitled for wages for the period in question. So far as grant of promotion to the post of Supervisor as alleged is concerned, his seniority has been disputed by respondents in the absence of material on record, it cannot be examined by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But that at least makes him entitled for grant of selection scales on completion of 9/18/27 years service on notional basis after taking note of his initial appointment from 11.05.1967 into consideration. 22. But that at least makes him entitled for grant of selection scales on completion of 9/18/27 years service on notional basis after taking note of his initial appointment from 11.05.1967 into consideration. 22. Before parting with this order, I may hasten to add that it is a case where I feel that despite award of reinstatement having been passed way back on 20.09.1980 by learned Labour Court, which too attained finality, and despite his persistent requests referred to (Supra), for reinstatement in his prime period of service, he was dragged into litigation one after the other, for no fault on his part, inasmuch as he was deprived of retiral benefits even after retirement in July, 2000. In such fact situation, I consider it proper to impose special costs of Rs. 5,000/-(Rs. five thousand) upon respondents and further award interest @ 9% per annum on the arrears of pension and retiral benefits from the date of its accrual till actual payment whereof . .23. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed to the following extent and consequently the respondents are directed to- .(a) first consider the candidature of petitioner after treating him to be in continuity of service and without any break for grant of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service from the date of initial appointment and pay fixation under the revised pay scales, be made on notional basis; .(b) compute pension and retiral benefits under Pension Rules, 1995 after notional pay fixation .ordered (supra), on the basis of total length of service from initial date of appointment 11.05.1967 till retirement 31.07.2000 and pay the same regularly to petitioner alongwith arrears of pension and retiral benefits with interest @ 9% per annum thereon from the date of its accrual till actual payment. .(c) pay as cost being quantified of Rs. 5,000/-. All exercise to comply with aforesaid direction be made within three months from today.