JUDGMENT : 1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and being satisfied with the grounds shown, I.A. No.8748 of 2017 is allowed and delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No. 567 of 2017 2. The respondent-writ petitioner was engaged in a Group-IV post on 2nd March, 1989 in the Health Education and Family Welfare Department in the capacity of Vaccinator (Pachhak). This appointment was subsequently reviewed by the authorities and inquiry was started in the year 1994 on the allegation of irregularity in his appointment. In the meantime, on 29th March, 2000, the respondent-writ petitioner was upgraded to Class-II position as a Male Family Planning Worker. On the allegation of tainted appointment, the writ petitioner's salary was stopped sometime after his appointment, which prompted filing of a writ petition registered as W.P. (S) No.3186 of 2003. The writ petitioner prayed for release of his salary in that writ petition. The State's defence was that the writ petitioner could not produce original appointment letter. That writ petition was disposed of with the following direction on 26.08.2008: - “Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I do find that the petitioners' salary has been stopped simply by stating that the photo copy of the appointment letters produced by the petitioners appears to be forged, though the matter required thorough inquiry. Therefore, the respondent no.4-Medical Officer-in-Charge, Primary health Centre, Karon is directed to hold inquiry in the matter and conclude it within three months. It goes without saying that the petitioners would have every right of being heard in course of inquiry. Till the final decision is taken by the respondent no.4, he would be paying salary to the petitioners, including the back wages.” His service, however, was subsequently terminated by an order passed on 30th July, 2009. Prior to issue of the termination order, the writ petitioner was given a show-cause notice and a report had been submitted by the In-charge Medical Officer. 3. The writ petitioner challenged the termination order in a writ petition registered as W.P. (S) No. 5191 of 2009. A learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to dispose of that writ petition by quashing the order of termination. 3. The writ petitioner challenged the termination order in a writ petition registered as W.P. (S) No. 5191 of 2009. A learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to dispose of that writ petition by quashing the order of termination. In that order, liberty was preserved for the authorities to proceed afresh in the matter and take appropriate decision in accordance with law by providing adequate and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a reasonable period. The learned Single Judge found that no proper enquiry was held and no definite conclusion was arrived at by the In-Charge Medical Officer. Complaint of the respondent-writ petitioner is that he was allowed to rejoin his service on 9th January, 2015, but no salary was being paid to him. A representation was made by the writ petitioner, inter-alia, for release of salary. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the representation was confined to that grievance. A detailed order subsequently was passed by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Jharkhand. In that order, the representation made by the respondent-writ petitioner was rejected. 4. The respondent-writ petitioner again approached this Court by invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking in substance quashing of the rejection order, referred to in the preceding paragraph of this judgment. Prayer was also made for payment of salary. The learned First Court was pleased to allow the writ petition in the following terms: - “6. In the backdrop of these facts, this Court is left with no option but to quash the impugned order passed by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Jharkhand, as contained in memo No.737(23), dated 29.4.2015 (Annexure-22 to this writ application), which is accordingly, quashed. Consequently, the respondent authorities are directed to allow the petitioner to continue in service with all pecuniary benefits, until the service of the petitioner is terminated in accordance with law, in view of the direction of this Court in W.P. (S) No.5191 of 2009, as contained in Annexure-18 to the writ application.” 5. It is this judgment which is assailed before us by the State. Learned counsel for the State has primarily argued on the point of sustainability of the rejection order. It is this judgment which is assailed before us by the State. Learned counsel for the State has primarily argued on the point of sustainability of the rejection order. But since the termination order of the writ petitioner stood quashed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, benefits attached with service of the writ petitioner cannot be denied. The State has not been able to demonstrate before us that the rejection order was in culmination of a proper enquiry proceeding. Case of the writ petitioner that the order of rejection was made in relation to his representation and not on the basis of any independent enquiry proceeding has not been repelled by the State. In such circumstances, we accept submission of the writ petitioner that the rejection order resulted from his representation for release of his salary and no proper enquiry was conducted, for which liberty was preserved for the State in the judgment delivered in W.P.(S) No. 5191 of 2009. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned First Court. We agree with the decision of the learned First Court that there being no substantive order of termination subsequent to quashing of the initial order of termination by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P(S) No. 5191 of 2009 the service benefits of the respondent-writ petitioner could not be denied or withheld. In the judgment under appeal also, liberty has been preserved for the authorities to take steps against the writ petitioner in accordance with law. Thus, the State's power and authority has been preserved by the learned First Court to take steps against the writ petitioner. The decision of the learned First Court is sustained. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. 6. In view of final order passed in the Letters Patent Appeal, I.A. No.9451 of 2017 also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.