ORDER : 1. This Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent preferred by the writ petitioner arises from the order dated 1st March 2012 made by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 2458 of 2012. 2. The appellant, a Forest Range Officer, was dismissed from service on 26th May 2001 on disciplinary grounds. The said order was confirmed in departmental appeal. The order in departmental appeal was the subject matter of challenge in CWJC No. 3369 of 2004. Under order dated 19th October 2005, the appellate order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority. After remand, the appellate authority, under order dated 29th September 2009, upheld the order of dismissal from service. The said order was subject matter of challenge in review application before the State Government. The State Government under order dated 26th July 2010 partially allowed the said review application. The order of dismissal from service was set aside and a lesser punishment of ‘withholding of two increments without future effect’ and ‘withholding of one increment with future effect’ and ‘Censure’ was imposed. While allowing the review application and setting aside the order of dismissal from service, the State Government did not make any order for the interregnum period, i.e., for the period from the date the appellant was dismissed from service till the date he has been reinstated in service under the order of the State Government. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the order of the State Government the appellant has been reinstated in service. It is not that the appellant is aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 26th July 2010 made by the State Government. The appellant did not challenge the said order and that order has now become final. 3. The appellant has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above CWJC No. 2458 of 2012 for a limited relief of recovery of arrears of salary for the period from 26th May 2012 till the date he was reinstated in service. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge has observed that the appellant was not exonerated completely but was found guilty, may be of a misconduct of lesser gravity and he has also been punished accordingly. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge has observed that the appellant was not exonerated completely but was found guilty, may be of a misconduct of lesser gravity and he has also been punished accordingly. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petitioner to approach the State Government for recovery of back wages or arrears of salary from February 2006 till 15th September 2009 and to establish before the State Government that he was not gainfully employed during the said period. Therefore, this Appeal. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Nikhil Agrawal has appeared for the appellant. He has vehemently submitted that the appellant having been reinstated in service is entitled to arrears of salary as a matter of course. We see no substance in the submission made before us. The learned Single Judge has rightly recorded that the appellant was indeed found guilty and was punished for the guilt proved against him. The appellant, therefore, cannot claim arrears of salary as a matter of course. Nevertheless, the learned Single Judge has, keeping in view the matter remained pending before the authority below, allowed the appellant to move the State Government for the arrears of salary from February 2006 till 15th September 2009 provided the appellant proves that he was not gainfully employed during the aforesaid period. 5. Learned Counsel Mr. Pandey Sanjay Sahay has submitted that the appellant has not approached the State Government for recovery of the arrears of salary for the period from February 2006 till 15th September 2009. Be that as it may, it is for the appellant to decide whether he would be able to establish that he was not gainfully employed for the aforesaid period. 6. Appeal is devoid of any merit. Appeal is dismissed.