JUDGMENT : 1. Termination of service of petitioner No.1s husband was challenged by way of SWP No.413/1978. Said writ petition was disposed of with a direction that copy of the enquiry report be made available to petitioner No.1s husband. However, before the aforesaid order could be implemented, petitioner No.1s husband was dismissed from service on 31.01.1978, Thereupon, petitioner No.1s husband filed SWP No.23/1978 challenging his dismissal from service. Aforesaid writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 01.06.1979 on ground of involvement of disputed questions of fact. Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the same was also dismissed. 2. Petitioner No.1s husband thereafter filed a civil suit which was decreed. State preferred an appeal against the decree and judgment which was dismissed on ground of being barred by limitation. Revision petition against the dismissal of appeal of the State before the High Court was also dismissed whereupon the State took the matter in appeal before the Honble Supreme Court which remanded the matter to the District Judge to decide the appeal on merit. The District Judge heard and dismissed the appeal of the State on merit, whereupon 2nd appeal was preferred by the State before the High Court while raising a new question i.e. regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the civil suit. 3. Plea regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the civil suit found favour with the High Court whereupon appeal was filed before the Letters Patent Bench but the same was dismissed. Petitioner No.1s husband thereafter approached the Honble Supreme Court of India by way of Civil Appeal No.964/1991 and also filed a separate writ petition i.e. No.788/1990. The Honble Supreme Court held that the bar of jurisdiction as envisaged under Section 20 of the Jammu & Kashmir Government Servants Prevention of Corruption Act, 1962 was not attracted to the facts of the case and the view expressed by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir to the contrary was incorrect. 4. While relying upon its decision in Managing Director ECIL vs K. Karuna Karan AIR 1974 SC 1074, the Honble Supreme Court remanded the matter to this Court on account of enquiry report not having been made available to petitioner No.1s husband before passing the order of dismissal with the directions to examine whether petitioner No. 1's husband had been prejudiced by non-supply of the copy of the enquiry report. Pursuant to the order of remand, the matter was considered by this Court up by way of CSA No.01/1989 and was decided in favour of petitioner No. 1's husband vide order dated 10.12.1998. Operative part of the decision of the Honble Division Bench in CSA No.01/1989 is reproduced hereunder:- It was thus observed that the decisions of the Tribunals would be subject to judicial scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls. In view of the above enunciation of law by a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India, this Court could have examined and scrutinized the findings recorded by the Tribunal constituted under the J&K Servants Prevention of Corruption Act, 1962. This is precisely what has been done by us. On appreciation of the material which has come on the record. We are of the firm view that Respondent Krishan Lal who was working in the office was not directly connected with the making entries on the attendance register. On the basis of this, it is difficult to sustain the order of punishment. We, accordingly, set aside the order of dismissal passed against the Respondent. The Respondent shall stand reinstated. The matter would go back to the State Government to decide the question as to how the intervening period is to be treated. Whether the Respondent is to be paid nor not paid, is a matter which would depend upon recording a finding as to whether the respondent was gainfully employed elsewhere or not" The State would be guided by the judicial pronouncements on the subject which may be brought to its notice by the respondent. The net result is that the order of dismissal based upon the report submitted by the Commission could not be sustained. Respondent Krishan Lal shall stand reinstated with all consequential benefits minus monetary benefits. The learned counsel appearing for the State has sought leave to file an appeal before the Supreme Court of India against this order. We are of the opinion, that this is not a fit case for grant of leave. The findings have been recorded on appreciation of evidence. No question of law is involved. Therefore, this prayer is declined. However, for a period of sixty days from today the judgment shall remain in abeyance. 5. We are of the opinion, that this is not a fit case for grant of leave. The findings have been recorded on appreciation of evidence. No question of law is involved. Therefore, this prayer is declined. However, for a period of sixty days from today the judgment shall remain in abeyance. 5. Pursuant thereto, an enquiry was conducted and order Annexure-B dated 21.08.2004 passed, treating the period of absence i.e. w.e.f. date of dismissal upto date of reinstatement i.e. 31.01.1978 to 29.09.2001 as period in-service though notionally without any monetary benefit except for the purpose of promotion and pensionary benefits. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on order Annexure-C dated 29.06.2002 contended that the enquiry officer had in his report categorically recorded that petitioner No. 1's husband had not been gainfully employed during the period of termination from service i.e., w.e.f. 1978 till rejoining in Headquarter/CD Poonch. Learned counsel further contended that the aforementioned finding attained finality and was never reversed by the authorities. Aforesaid fact has not been disputed by Mr. Nargal, learned Sr. AAG. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that in terms of the order of the Honble Division Bench dated 10.12.1998 in CSA No.01/1989, the question as to whether the petitioner was to be paid for the period he forcibly remained out of service was dependant upon outcome of proceedings to be conducted by the department to ascertain as to whether petitioner No. 1's husband had remained gainfully employed during the said period or not. Learned counsel contends that in view of the categorical finding of the Enquiry Officer that the husband of petitioner No.1 had not remained gainfully employed during the period he forcibly remained out of service till reinstatement, petitioner No. 1's husband was entitled to reinstatement with full back-wages. 8. Per contra, Mr. Nargal, learned Sr. AAG contended that the order of the Honble Division Bench in CSA No.01/1989 categorically recorded that although the order of dismissal was set aside and petitioner No. 1's husband was reinstated with all consequential benefits, yet the same was minus monetary benefits. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that petitioner No. 1's husband also filed Contempt Petition No.02/2002 in CSA No.01/1989 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 06.05.2002. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that petitioner No. 1's husband also filed Contempt Petition No.02/2002 in CSA No.01/1989 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 06.05.2002. Operative part of the order of the Contempt Court is reproduced hereunder : It is also made clear that in case actual monetary benefits become due and these are not released within the above stipulated period, then the petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The interest components would be paid by the person on whose account delay occurs. 10. Learned counsel contends that in view of the categorical finding of petitioner No. 1's husband not being gainfully employed as well as in the light of the orders in the contempt petition, petitioner No. 1's husband was entitled to monetary benefits along with interest @ 12% per annum with the interest to be paid by the person on whose account delay occurred. 11. Learned Sr. AAG on the other hand contended that the orders of the Contempt Court could be relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners only in the eventuality, the department had come to the finding that petitioner No.1s husband was entitled to payment of monetary benefits but the department had come to a contrary finding, therefore, the question of reliance on the orders of the contempt Court dated 06.05.2002 did not arise. 12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and am of the considered view that the writ petition is liable to be allowed. Admittedly, the orders of the Honble Division Bench dated 10.12.1998 in CSA No.01/1989 were never challenged, thus have attained finality and petitioner No. 1's husband was reinstated with consequential benefits with the direction that payment for the period he had remained out of service was dependant on the finding in proceedings to be conducted to ascertain whether he had remained gainfully employed during the period he forcibly remained out of service. Since the Enquiry Officer appointed by the respondents categorically recorded in the enquiry report dated 29.06.2002 that petitioner No.1s husband was not gainfully employed during the period he forcibly remained out of service on account of termination of service i.e., w.e.f. 1978 till he rejoined in Headquarter/CD Poonch, then in that eventuality, in view of the order of the Honble Division Bench dated 10.12.1998 in CSA No.01/1989, the respondents had no option but to make payment to petitioner No. 1's husband for the period he was forced to remain out of service since order dated 10.12.1998 in CSA No.01/1989 was never challenged by the respondents and has attained finality. 13. In the circumstances, I hold that husband of petitioner No.1 was entitled to be paid consequential monetary benefits also for the period, he remained out of service w.e.f., the date of his termination till reinstatement in terms of order of the Honble Division Bench dated 10.12.1998. Resultantly, SWP No.119/2005 is allowed. Order (Annexure-B) dated 21.08.2004 to the extent, the same denies payment of monetary benefits to the husband of petitioner No.1 is quashed. Petitioner No. 1's husband is held entitled to consequential monetary benefits for the period, he remained out of service in accordance with the orders of the Honble Division Bench dated 10.12.1998 in CSA No.01/1989. Since petitioner No. 1's husband was forced to resort to numerous rounds of litigation for no fault of his and has died while being compelled to resort to uncalled for litigation, his legal representatives are entitled to release of all monetary benefits along with interest @ 6% per annum on the amount due and payble w.e.f. the date the monetary benefits were due and till the date the same are paid, with the payment of entire dues to be made within a period of three months from today. In case the entire amount due is not paid to the legal representatives of the deceased Krishan Lal within aforesaid period of three months, the monetary benefits, then in that eventuality the monetary benefits shall become payable along with interest @ 9 % per annum w.e.f the date the amount was due and payable and till the date the same is paid with amount on account of higher interest of 9 % i.e. 3 % over and above the 6 % ordered to be paid by the respondents to be recoverable by the respondents from the officer responsible for the delay in non-compliance with the orders of this Court to make payment within 3 months from today. 14. Writ petition allowed as above.