JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Samir Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri K.M. Mishra, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3. 2. The petitioners, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "UPSRTC") and its authorities have filed this writ petition aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.1998 passed by the U.P. Public Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") allowing Claim Petition No. 2218 of 1995 of the respondent No. 1 directing the petitioners to pay arrears of salary to the respondent No. 1 for the period he was out of service on account of the order of termination which was already set aside by the Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 155 of 1986 decided on 06.05.1994. 3. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent No. 1 was working as Conductor. Disciplinary proceedings were held against him by issuing charge-sheet dated 17.03.1973 and thereafter the punishment of removal was imposed upon him vide order dated 10.10.1975. He challenged the said order of removal in Claim Petition No. 155 of 1986 before the Tribunal and his claim petition was allowed vide judgment dated 06.05.1994. The operative part of the judgment is reproduced as under : "The review petition is allowed. The judgement dated 5.1.94 is modified to the effect that since second show cause notice is illegal and bad and against law, so the removal order of the petitioner dt. 10.10.75 contained in annexure 9 is quashed being illegal and bad. The petitioner shall be reinstated and shall be treated to be in continuous service for the purposes of pension and gratuity if the petitioner has retired. For the period from 10.10.75 till the date of reinstatement, the opposite parties shall take a decision in accordance with Rules and from the date of reinstatement , the petitioner shall regularly be paid salary till the date of his superannuation. Costs is made easy. Let the judgment be complied with within one month from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order on the opposite parties by the petitioner." 4. It is not disputed that the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal has not been assailed by the UPSRTC by filing writ petition before this Court or before any other appropriate forum and the same has attained finality. 5. It is not disputed that the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal has not been assailed by the UPSRTC by filing writ petition before this Court or before any other appropriate forum and the same has attained finality. 5. Subsequently, the respondent No. 1 submitted his joining report pursuant to the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal which has not given effect by the petitioners immediately and on the contrary the order of reinstatement was issued on 17.12.1994 in which it was stated that the question of his arrears of salary shall be decided subsequently after a final decision is taken in the departmental inquiry to be conducted afresh against the respondent No. 1. Aggrieved by this part of the order, the respondent No. 1 again approached the Tribunal by filing Claim Petition No. 2218 of 1995 which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide judgment impugned in this writ petition. The operative part of the judgment dated 19.01.1998 is reproduced as under : "The claim petition is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay full pay and allowances to the petitioner for the period from 10.10.1975 upto 23.12.1994 in accordance with the pay scales as revised from time to time. The opposite parties shall pay full pay and allowances to the petitioner from the date of his removal till the date of reinstatement and onwards. The last sentence of the impugned order dated 17.12.1994 contained in Annexure-2 to the claim petition which relates to the payment of back wages in accordance with the result of departmental enquiry to be held in future against the petitioner is hereby quashed and the order dated 17.12.1994 is modified accordingly. The opposite parties are directed to make compliance of this judgment and order within a period of three months from the date when a certified copy of this judgment is received by them. Under the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is held entitled to get cost of this petition from the opposite parties which is assessed at Rs. 200/-." 6. Sri Samir Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the decision was taken to hold inquiry afresh against the respondent No. 1, therefore, he is not entitled for any arrears of salary. We do not find any substance in the submission. 200/-." 6. Sri Samir Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the decision was taken to hold inquiry afresh against the respondent No. 1, therefore, he is not entitled for any arrears of salary. We do not find any substance in the submission. It is not disputed that the Tribunal by its judgment dated 06.05.1994 set aside the removal order and held that the petitioner shall be reinstated and shall be treated to be in continuous in service. The respondents were also directed to pass order in accordance with rules with respect to arrears of salary for the period the respondent No. 1 remained out of job. In such a situation where the order of dismissal or removal is set aside by a Court of Law then the order has been passed by the employer under Fundamental Rule 54-A, which reproduced as under : "54-A. (1) Where the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by a Court of law and such Government servant is reinstated without holding any further inquiry, the period of absence from duty shall be regularised and the Government servant shall be paid pay and allowances in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2) or (3) subject to the directions, if any, of the Court. (2) (i) Where the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by the Court solely on the ground of non-compliance with the requirements of clause (1) or clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution, and where he is not exonerated on merits, and no further inquiry is proposed to be held, the Government servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (7) of Rule 54, be paid such amount (none being the whole) of the pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, as the competent authority may determine, after giving notice to the Government servant of the quantum proposed and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him in that connection within such period (which in no case shall exceed sixty days from the date on which the notice has been served) as may be specified in the notice. (ii) The period intervening between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement including the period of suspension preceding dismissal removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and the date of judgment of the Court shall be regularised in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-rule (5) of Rule 54. (3) If the dismissal removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by the Court on the merits of the case, the period intervening between the date of dismissal removal or compulsory retirement including the period of suspension preceding such dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and the date of reinstatement shall be treated as duty for all purpose and he shall be paid of the full pay and allowances for the period, to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be. (4) The payment of allowances under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3) shall be subject to all other conditions under which such allowances are admissible. (5) Any payment made under this Rule to a Government servant on his reinstatement shall be subject to adjustment of the amount, if any earned by him through an employment during the period between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and the date of reinstatement. Where the emoluments admissible under this Rule are equal to or less than those earned during the employment elsewhere, nothing shall be paid to the Government servant. NOTE-.—Where the Government servant does not report for any duty within reasonable time after the issue of the orders of reinstatements after the dismissal removal or compulsory retirement, no pay and allowances will be paid to him for such period till he actually takes over charge." 7. The authority was supposed to consider as to whether the order has been set aside on technical ground or otherwise and whether the employee is entitled for full salary or not. The petitioner instead of considering the matter under Fundamental Rule 54-A has withheld the arrears of salary of respondent No. 1 only on the ground that the same shall be considered as a result of departmental inquiry. The decision taken as mentioned in the order dated 17.12.1994 was not in accordance with the Rules and therefore has rightly been set aside. The decision taken as mentioned in the order dated 17.12.1994 was not in accordance with the Rules and therefore has rightly been set aside. 8. In this view of the matter, we do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. The writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. ————