JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Rule. Shri H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent no.1 herein. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the present application is taken up for final hearing today. 2. Present application has been preferred by the applicants herein original petitioners in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1043 of 2015 to review and recall the judgment and order dated 2.11.2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1043 of 2015, by directing the respondent authority to pay full back wages without consequential and incidental benefits. In the alternative, it is prayed to request the learned Single Judge to clarify the order passed in Special Civil Application No. 6334 of 2015 by directing the respondent authorities to pay full back wages with all consequential and incidental benefits. 3. The facts leading to the present application in nutshell are as under: 3.1. That the applicants herein approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 6334 of 2015 challenging the order of termination passed by the respondent dated 4.4.2015, by which, all the applicants herein were terminated. That in the said Special Civil Application, applicants herein original petitioners prayed for following relief: “Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus by quashing and setting aside the order of termination passed by the respondent dated 4.4.2015 for all the petitioners at Annexure L and further be pleased to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to continue with their service as if no order of termination has ever been passed and further be pleased to direct the respondent to pay full back wages with all consequential and incidental benefits.” 3.2. That by detailed judgment and order, the learned Single Judge allowed the said Special Civil Application and quashed and set aside the order of termination dated 4.4.2015 in case of all the petitioners. The learned Single Judge directed to reinstate all the petitioners. The learned Single Judge also observed and clarified that the order would not preclude the competent authority from taking a fresh decision after following due procedure as stated in para 19 by giving effective opportunity to the original petitioners in connection with the issue raise in the petition. The learned Single Judge directed to reinstate all the petitioners. The learned Single Judge also observed and clarified that the order would not preclude the competent authority from taking a fresh decision after following due procedure as stated in para 19 by giving effective opportunity to the original petitioners in connection with the issue raise in the petition. At this stage, it is required to be noted that though the learned Single Judge quashed and set aside the order of termination qua all the original petitioners and directed reinstatement, the learned Single Judge did not specifically observe anything with respect to back wages for the interregnum period i.e. from the date of termination i.e. 4.4.2015 till they are reinstated. The learned Single Judge neither specifically refused the same nor granted the same. It appears that feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No.6334 of 2015, the respondent herein – company preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.1043 of 2015 before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 2.11.2015 not only confirmed the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that the order of termination dated 4.4.2015 was in breach of principles of natural justice, even the Division Bench, specifically observed and held that basis of action for termination is on wrong interpretation of the eligibility criteria as provided in the advertisement at the time of recruitment. Therefore, the Division Bench specifically observed that they do not find that the liberty as observed by the learned Single Judge should be continued. Therefore, the Division Bench though confirmed the ultimate decision taken by the learned Single Judge, for quashing the action of termination and reinstatement, the Division Bench specifically clarified and observed that no action on the said ground shall be taken thereafter. The learned advocate for the respondent herein – company requested to stay the operation of the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench, however the same came to be declined. At this stage, it is required to be noted that thereafter no further steps are taken by the respondent-company challenging the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench dated 2.11.2015 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1043 of 2015. 3.3. At this stage, it is required to be noted that thereafter no further steps are taken by the respondent-company challenging the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench dated 2.11.2015 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1043 of 2015. 3.3. It appears that thereafter, applicants herein – original petitioners after their order of reinstatement dated 24.11.2015 requested the respondent company to pay back wages / wages for the period between 4.4.2015 to 24.11.2015. However, as there was no specific order passed by the learned Single Judge and / or even the Division Bench to grant back wages from the date of termination till reinstatement, the respondent company did not accept the representation of the applicants for grant of back wages for the period between 4.4.2015 to 24.11.2015. Therefore, the applicants herein approached the learned Single Judge by way of Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 1533 of 2016 in Special Civil Application No. 6334 of 2015 for clarification and / or direction directing the respondent company to pay wages/ back wages for the period between 4.4.2015 to 24.11.2015. It is the case on behalf of the applicants that learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the order passed in Special Civil Application No. 6334 of 2015 was challenged before the Division Bench by way of Letters Patent Appeal No.1043 of 2015 and the Division Bench confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge, judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge can be said to have been merged into order passed by the Division Bench and therefore, the applicants are required to submit appropriate application in the Letters Patent Appeal and therefore, applicant withdrew the said Miscellaneous Civil Application with a liberty to avail appropriate remedy that is how applicants have preferred present application for the aforesaid relief. 4. Shri H.J.Dholakia, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the applicants – original petitioners and Shri H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent company. 5. 4. Shri H.J.Dholakia, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the applicants – original petitioners and Shri H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent company. 5. Shri Dholakia, learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that as such the learned Single Judge quashed and set aside the order of termination and directed to reinstatement the original petitioners and once the date of order of termination is held to be illegal and is in breach of principles of natural justice, as a consequence thereof, the original petitioners were entitled to wages / back wages from the order of termination till reinstatement. It is submitted that however, the learned Single Judge inadvertently and / or through oversight did not issue any clear direction while allowing the main petition, to pay the full back wages with all consequential and incidental benefits. It is submitted that even the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal, in which, order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No. 6334 of 2015 was challenged, not only confirmed the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the order of termination was in breach of principles of natural justice, the Division Bench specifically observed and held that as such the basis of action for termination was on wrong interpretation of the eligibility criteria as provided in the advertisement at the time of recruitment and therefore, even observed and held that no action on the said ground shall be taken thereafter. It is submitted that thereafter when original applicants were denied the back wages by the respondent company for the period from 4.4.2015 till 24.11.2015 when the applicant approached the learned Single Judge for clarification and to review the order passed in Special Civil Application No. 6334 of 2015, by granting consequential and incidental benefits while quashing and setting aside the order of termination, same came to be withdrawn on the ground that the order of learned Single Judge is merged in the order passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.1043 of 2015 and therefore, it is requested to grant the relief as prayed in the present application. 6. 6. Present application is opposed by Shri Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent company mainly on the ground that present application has been preferred in the Letters Patent Appeal which was preferred by the respondent company and therefore, no order is required to be passed in favour of applicant with respect to back wages from the date of termination till reinstatement, which as such was not granted by the learned Single Judge while allowing the main Special Civil Application, which was the subject matter before the Division Bench. 6.1. It is submitted by Shri Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent company that if at all the applicants are aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge in not granting consequential / incidental benefits, on quashing and setting aside the order of termination, the applicants are required to prefer the Letters Patent Appeal against the same and said remedy is still available to the applicants. It is submitted that however, such a relief in the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the respondent company shall not be available to them. 6.2. It is further submitted by Shri Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent that as the original petitioners – applicants herein did not work from the date of termination till their reinstatement, therefore they shall not be entitled to full back wages from the date of termination till reinstatement. No other submissions have been made. Making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present application. 7. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that while allowing Special Civil Application No.6334 of 2015 preferred by the applicants herein, the learned Single Judge quashed and set aside the order of termination and passed order of reinstatement, by holding that the order of termination was in breach of principles of natural justice. From the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No. 6334 of 2015, it appears that while quashing and setting aside the order of termination and while passing the order of reinstatement, the learned Single Judge did not clarify anything with respect to the back wages and / or consequential benefits for the period between date of termination till reinstatement. The order passed by the learned Single Judge came to be confirmed by the Division Bench. The order passed by the learned Single Judge came to be confirmed by the Division Bench. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the Division Bench not only confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing and setting aside the order of termination and ordering reinstatement which was on ground that the same is in breach of principles of natural justice, the Division Bench specifically observed and held that even the order of termination was on wrong interpretation of the eligibility criteria as provided in the advertisement at the time of recruitment and therefore, as such no liberty as observed by the learned Single Judge should be continued and therefore, the Division Bench has specifically observed and held that no action on the said ground be taken thereafter. It is not in dispute that the order passed by the Division Bench has attained the finality. Therefore, as such order passed by the learned Single Judge can be said to have been merged into order passed by the Division Bench while passing the judgment and order in Letters Patent Appeal No.1043 of 2015. Therefore, as such the applicants have rightly thought it fit to file the application in the Letters Patent Appeal to review / recall the order and to grant consequential benefits of back wages from the date of termination till reinstatement. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even earlier the applicants did approach the learned Single Judge, after the judgment and order passed in Letters Patent Appeal, however they withdrew the same with a liberty to avail other remedy and that is how the present application has been preferred. Under the circumstances, objection raised on behalf of the respondent that present applicant in the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the management no relief can be granted to the applicant herein deserves to be rejected. Under the circumstances, objection raised on behalf of the respondent that present applicant in the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the management no relief can be granted to the applicant herein deserves to be rejected. In the facts and circumstances of the case narrated herein above and more particularly, when the order passed by the learned Single Judge is merged into order passed by the Division Bench, there is nothing wrong on the part of the applicants in filing present application in the Letters Patent Appeal may be by the applicants, which might have been preferred by the respondent company, more particularly, when for the reasons stated herein below, original petitioners are held entitled to the consequential benefits on quashing and setting aside the order of termination. 8. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the main objection on the part of the respondent company is that in the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the management such a clarification cannot be made and that it will be open for the applicants herein to prefer Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in not granting the consequential benefits. However, the same would lead to multiplicity of further proceedings. It is required to be noted that as such learned Single Judge while allowing the petition and quashing and setting aside the order of termination did not specifically deny and / or reject the relief of consequential benefits / back wages from the date of termination till reinstatement. Once the same was not specifically rejected / denied, there was no question of preferring any appeal and only remedy would be to prefer review application for clarification which could have been made before the learned Single Judge and as such was made, but as against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, Letters Patent Appeal was preferred and the order passed by the learned Single Judge has been confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal and thereby order passed by the learned Single Judge is merged into order passed by the Division Bench, the applicants cannot be denied the relief as payed in the present application solely on the ground raised by the respondent company recorded herein above. 9. 9. Now, so far as entitlement of the back wages / consequential benefits on quashing and setting aside the order of termination and while ordering reinstatement is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that the order of termination is not only held to be illegal as the same was in breach of principles of natural justice, but even Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the Letters Patent Appeal also specifically observed that the order of termination was on wrong interpretation of the eligibility criteria as provided in the advertisement at the time of recruitment. Therefore, on quashing and setting aside the order of termination and while ordering reinstatement, the applicants herein original petitioners shall be entitled to the back wages for the interregnum period i.e. from the date of termination till reinstatement. Once the order of termination was held to be illegal and on wrong interpretation of the eligibility criteria, the applicants cannot be denied back wages / consequential benefits on the principle of no work no pay. As per the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court once the order of termination is held to be illegal necessary consequence of back wages shall follow, except in exceptional circumstances where the order of termination is found to be bad on technical ground and / or in case of daily wager or appointed on the contractual basis etc. 10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present application is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 2.11.2015 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1043 of 2015 is hereby reviewed and it is clarified that while quashing and setting aside the order of termination and ordering reinstatement, original petitioners shall be entitled to consequential benefits viz. back wages from 4.4.2015 24.11.2015, which shall be paid to the original applicants within a period of eight weeks from today. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No costs.