ORDER : At the very outset it has been pointed out by Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that now after merger of Cooperative Banks, the Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Ranchi is necessary party and the same may be impleaded as a party-respondent no. 3. 2. In view of submission, learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to implead the Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Ranchi as a party-respondent no. 3 in the instant writ petition in course of day with red ink. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to pay him arrears of salary for the period 04.05.2007 till 19.03.2013. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing part of the order dated 19.03.2013, as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition, by which respondents have taken a decision to treat the intervening period from 07.12.2006 to 17.03.2013 as leave without pay. 5. From the pleadings on record and arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties it appears that petitioner had earlier moved this Court vide W.P.(S) No. 871 of 2008 and this Court vide order dated 12.04.2012 remanded the matter back to the respondents after setting aside the order of termination with liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 6. Before advancing his arguments, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. Advocate confines his prayer for payment of salary from the period of termination to the period of reinstatement i.e. from 04.05.2007 to 19.03.2013. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. Counsel submits that after passing of the order dated 12.04.2012, the respondent – Dumka Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. issued order as contained in Memo No. 596, dated 19.03.2013 by which service of the petitioner has been reinstated on the same post and pursuant thereto, petitioner gave joining on the same date before the Managing Director, the Dumka Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. No fresh proceeding was ever initiated rather only a second show-cause notice was issued, even no punishment was inflicted upon the petitioner. In the impugned order it has been said that petitioner is not entitled for the salary for the period he remained unauthorisedly absent. In the impugned order it has been said that petitioner is not entitled for the salary for the period he remained unauthorisedly absent. No decision has been taken regarding intervening period of termination and reinstatement i.e. 04.05.2007 to 19.03.2013 and as such, petitioner is entitled for the salary for the said period as he was reinstated into the services without any punishment. It can be comfortably inferred that petitioner was exonerated from the charges and as such, reinstated into the services. To strengthen his arguments, learned Sr. Counsel has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Jasmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (2015) 4 SCC 458 [PARA-13] and the reported Judgment of this Court in the case of Kamal Kumar Patnaik Vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in 2018(2) JLJR 535 . 7. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents – Bank vehemently opposes the contention of learned Sr. Counsel and submits that petitioner is not entitled for the salary for the intervening period from termination to reinstatement since he was held guilty of the charges. Learned counsel further urges that no leave was due against the petitioner. The period was treated as ‘Leave without pay’ and was never regularized and as such he is not entitled to the salary for the intervening period of termination to reinstatement. Justifying the impugned order, learned counsel submits that there is no material in the instant writ petition and as such the same is fit to be dismissed. 8. Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered opinion that case of the petitioner needs consideration. Petitioner had moved this Court earlier vide W.P.(S) No. 871 of 2008 and this Court, vide order dated 12.04.2012 quashed the order of termination with a liberty to the respondents – Bank to hold inquiry and proceed further after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. There was a specific direction to the respondents that if petitioner is found guilty, he may be inflicted with punishment and even harsh order of punishment could have been passed. Going through the impugned order it transpires that no proceeding was ever initiated. Merely second show-cause was issued and considering reply of the petitioner, he was reinstated into the service, no punishment was inflicted against the petitioner. Going through the impugned order it transpires that no proceeding was ever initiated. Merely second show-cause was issued and considering reply of the petitioner, he was reinstated into the service, no punishment was inflicted against the petitioner. Meaning thereby, petitioner was exonerated from the charges and he was reinstated into the service. Though the respondents have come to a finding that the petitioner is not entitled for the salary for the period of unauthorized leave and no leave was due against him and as such, he was not entitled for the salary for the period. It is not in dispute that petitioner was on unauthorized leave during that period but petitioner is not claiming any salary for the said period but on reinstatement petitioner is claiming salary of the period he remained out of service. Since petitioner has been reinstated, he is entitled for the salary as his reinstatement is without any punishment. 9. At this juncture, it is relevant to quote Rule 97(1) and (2) of the Bihar Service Rule, which reads as under: “97. (1) When a Government servant who has been dismissed, removed or suspended, reinstated, the authority competent to order the reinstatement shall consider and make specific order – (a) Regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of his absence from duty, and (b) Whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. (2) Where the authority mentioned in sub-rule (1), is of opinion that the Government servant has been fully exonerated, or in the case of suspension, that it was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall be given full pay and allowance to which he would have been entitled has he not been dismissed, removed or suspended, as the case may be.” 10. Even the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Jasmer Singh (Supra) has clearly held that if an employee has been reinstated without any punishment, he is entitled for the backwages. The settled principles of law is not in dispute. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in the case of Kamal Kumar Patnaik (Supra). 11. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, I hereby direct the respondent no. The settled principles of law is not in dispute. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in the case of Kamal Kumar Patnaik (Supra). 11. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, I hereby direct the respondent no. 3 – The Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Ranchi to take a final decision within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order regarding payment of salary of the petitioner for the periods from 04.05.2007 to 19.03.2013 in accordance with law. Needless to say, if petitioner is found entitled for the same, the consequential benfits for the said period be extended in his favour within a period of six weeks thereafter. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.