JUDGMENT Learned Standing Counsel is permitted to correct the name of petitioner no.1. 2. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for opposite party no.1. 3. This petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 4.11.2015 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (for short "the Tribunal"). 4. The controversy in question before this Court as argued by the counsel for the parties is as to whether opposite party no.1 would be entitled for full back wages in view of the provisions contained in Fundamental Rule 54 (3) of the Financial Hand Book Volume-II, Part-II to IV or opposite party no.1 would be entitled for 50% back wages as settled by the Apex Court from time to time. 5. It is to be noted that opposite party no.1 was dismissed from service on account of misconduct having been committed by him against his superior officers. He also exceeded his limit of official duty while handling the situation on the spot. An enquiry was held against opposite party no.1 and after elaborate enquiry by following the principles of natural justice, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 8.9.1994. The said order was challenged before the Tribunal and the Tribunal proceeded to quash the dismissal order by means of judgment and order dated 14.1.2010 by observing as under: - "Accordingly, we allow this reference petition and quash the punishment order dt. 8.9.94, as contained in Annexure-1 to the claim petition and the appellate order as well. We remit the matter to the disciplinary authority-O.P. no.3 to pass a fresh order with regard to the punishment to be imposed on the petitioner which should be commensurate with the guilt found proved against the petitioner but not being the punishment of dismissal, removal or termination from service. The disciplinary authority-O.P. no.3 will pass appropriate orders in the light of the above within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of a copy of this order before him." 6. The aforesaid order was not challenged by the petitioners and rather in pursuance to the aforesaid order, Government proceeded to pass a fresh order reinstating opposite party no.1 in service and reducing him to three years' minimum pay scale. While passing the aforesaid order, it was observed by the Government that the decision in regard to payment of back wages shall be taken separately. While passing the aforesaid order, it was observed by the Government that the decision in regard to payment of back wages shall be taken separately. Opposite party no.1 moved a representation before the Government stating therein that the question of back wages may be decided. The question of back wages was not decided. So, opposite party no.1 was compelled to file writ petition before this Court at Allahabad, which was dismissed with the observation that opposite party no.1 may approach the Government. Thereafter, he approached the Government and the Government passed an order whereby back wages were denied to opposite party no.1. The said order was put to challenge before the Tribunal and the Tribunal proceeded to allow full back wages to opposite party no.1 considering the provisions laid down in Fundamental Rule 54 (3) of the Financial Hand Book Volume-II, Part-II to IV and also considering the fact that since minor punishment was awarded, therefore, opposite party no.1 was entitled for full back wages. 7. We are constraint to observe that full back wages will be available to the incumbent when initially minor punishment is awarded, but here in the case in hand minor punishment was not awarded to opposite party no.1 rather he was dismissed from service. The said dismissal order having been set aside by the Tribunal and thereafter, a fresh order being passed whereby minor punishment was awarded to opposite party no.1. In these circumstances, reliance placed by the Tribunal upon the case laws was misconceived and neither full back wages could have been awarded, but looking to the fact that opposite party no.1 is contesting the claim since 1994 and has been subjected to various rounds of litigation, it deems proper that the litigation may be put to an end. We have asked counsel for the parties in regard to award of back wages to which it appears that they could not point out any other proper proposal except that 50% back wages may be paid to opposite party no.1. In these circumstances, we follow the normal rule of awarding 50% back wages to opposite party no.1. 8. We have asked counsel for the parties in regard to award of back wages to which it appears that they could not point out any other proper proposal except that 50% back wages may be paid to opposite party no.1. In these circumstances, we follow the normal rule of awarding 50% back wages to opposite party no.1. 8. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment and order dated 4.11.2015 passed by the Tribunal and direct the petitioners to pay 50% back wages to opposite party no.1 with continuity in the service within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.