JUDGMENT Heard Mr.Birendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Vinay Bhushan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioner has assailed the judgment and order dated 26.7.2010, passed by the State Public Service Tribunal in Claim Petition No.573 of 2005 as also the judgment and order dated 18.3.2016, passed by the Tribunal in Review Petition No.95 of 2010 filed in the said claim petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly rejected the petitioner's claim of back wages, whereas once the petitioner was reinstated in service with back wages there was no occasion to put the petitioner in further inquiry particularly when no liberty was granted by the Court to initiate a fresh inquiry. Mainly he has raised the issue of payment of back wages from the date of suspension till the date of his reinstatement on the ground that once he was reinstated in service he became entitled to get the whole salary as was admissible to him. 4. Learned Tribunal has examined the matter and held that the question of payment of back wages had already been determined by the High Court in writ petition No.805 (SB) of 1997, in which the High Court had found the inquiry being totally in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore had quashed the order of punishment dated 6.8.1981. We quote the operative portion of the order as under: - "In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ in the nature of Certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 6.8.1981. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service but he will be paid his back wages only for 18 months." 5. Upon perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, we found that the Tribunal has examined only the matter of payment of back wages and held that once the High Court had determined the petitioner's entitlement of back wages only for 18 months, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to adjudicate upon this issue a fresh. The issue of initiation of inquiry afresh was not raised by the petitioner. Therefore it would not be appropriate for the Court to deal with the issue of initiation of fresh inquiry, once it was not raised by the petitioner at the appropriate time. The issue of initiation of inquiry afresh was not raised by the petitioner. Therefore it would not be appropriate for the Court to deal with the issue of initiation of fresh inquiry, once it was not raised by the petitioner at the appropriate time. Now admittedly the inquiry has been conducted afresh and final punishment has already been awarded, in which the petitioner was awarded a minor penalty. He had challenged the same and the punishment has been quashed also. This fact establishes that the petitioner has raised the issue of initiation of fresh inquiry only to establish his right to get back wages for the whole period of inquiry, but unsuccessfully. Thus we do not find error in the orders impugned. The writ petition stands dismissed.