ORDER : 1. The petitioner filed the present writ petition against the Order dated 30.07.2020 passed in Application No. 5524/2014 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, rejecting I.A. Nos. 3/2018 and 4/2018, both filed under Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying to direct the respondents to restore the Application No. 5524/2014 which was allowed on 19.07.2017 and to direct the respondents to pay the back wages as prayed in prayer No. 2 of Application No. 5524/2014, respectively. (I) BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as a lecturer in 3rd respondent-College on 27.01.2010 under scheduled caste category viz. Moger. The Tahsildar, Hubballi, by the Order dated 17.12.2013 cancelled the caste certificate of the petitioner, based on which, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide Order dated 26.06.2014 on the ground that the petitioner has obtained the post of lecturer on the basis of a fake caste certificate. The said order of dismissal was subject matter of Application No. 5524/2014 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short) which came to be allowed by the Order dated 19.07.2017, setting aside the Order of dismissal dated 26.06.2014 directing the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner to duty within a period of two months, without fail. It was also observed that the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits inclusive of seniority, notional fixation of pay and monetary benefits, if any. The said order dated 19.07.2017 passed in Application No. 5524/2014 reached finality, since the State Government has not filed any appeal challenging the said order. 3. When things stood thus, unfortunately, on the wrong advise, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 3/2018 seeking to restore Application No. 5524/2014 and I.A. No. 4/2018 praying to direct the respondents to pay the back wages. The Tribunal, by the Order dated 28.11.2018, rejected the applications. Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No. 109902/2019, which came to be disposed off by the Order dated 10.10.2019 quashing the Order dated 28.11.2018 and remitting the matter to the Tribunal, to decide the applications afresh, by a speaking Order, within a period of two months, holding that the Tribunal has not assigned any reasons while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for back wages. The said Order dated 10.10.2019 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 109902/2019 has reached finality, since the State has not filed any Appeal. 4. After remand, the Tribunal, by the Order dated 30.07.2020 dismissed I.A. Nos. 3 and 4/2018, both filed under Sections 22 of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, mainly on the ground that the petitioner approached the competent Court and also the Tribunal and succeeded in her reinstatement into service; the Tribunal has already granted substantial relief; it is clear from findings of the Tribunal that petitioner is not entitled to any back wages and therefore, question of considering the case of the petitioner once again to grant further relief of back wages does not arise. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. (II) ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER 6. Sri. Shriharsh A. Neelopant, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that the impugned Order dated 30.07.2020 passed by the Tribunal in Application No. 5524/2014 dismissing the interlocutory application Nos. 3/2018 and 4/2018 filed praying to pay the back wages is erroneous, contrary to the material on record and liable to be quashed. He further contended that the specific prayer in Application No. 5524/2014 was to quash the Order of dismissal dated 26.06.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent dismissing the petitioner from service and to direct the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to reinstate the petitioner into service with all back wages w.e.f. 26.06.2014. The Order dated 19.07.2017 passed by the Tribunal allowing Application No. 5524/2014 in its entirety and setting aside the Order of dismissal dated 26.06.2014 has reached finality; since the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner into service, she is entitled to all consequential benefits including seniority, notional fixation of pay and monetary benefits, if any. Though the petitioner was entitled to back wages, there was no need for her to file the interlocutory applications and on wrong advise, two interlocutory applications were filed praying to restore the earlier order and to grant the relief of back wages. 7. Though the petitioner was entitled to back wages, there was no need for her to file the interlocutory applications and on wrong advise, two interlocutory applications were filed praying to restore the earlier order and to grant the relief of back wages. 7. Learned counsel further contended that on the basis of the Civil Rights Enforcement cell report, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 245/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 196, 198, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(ix) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in Hubballi Sub Urban Police Station and the proceeding was pending on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dharwad. The petitioner filed Criminal Petition No. 102034/2014 before this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash the proceeding in Crime No. 245/2014. The learned single Judge of this Court, after hearing the petitioner as well as the Government Advocate, by the Order dated 07.11.2015 allowed the Criminal Petition and quashed the proceeding made against the petitioner in Hubballi Sub Urban Police Station Crime No. 245/2014 pending on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad and the said Order has reached finality. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Tribunal, while allowing the Application No. 5514/2014, by the Order dated 19.07.2017 recorded a finding that, the applicant or her parents have not played any fraud or misrepresented the authorities, in any manner and the Order passed by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad, who is the only competent authority to set-aside the order of cancellation of the caste certificate has already passed an order and the said order has not been challenged and thus, it has become final. He further contended that once the order of dismissal is set-aside by the Tribunal holding that there is no mistake on the part of the petitioner or her parents, petitioner is entitled to all consequential reliefs including back wages. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition. 9. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Director of Education and Others, AIR 2016 SC 1855 , paragraphs 36 and 37. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition. 9. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Director of Education and Others, AIR 2016 SC 1855 , paragraphs 36 and 37. (III) ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS 10. Per contra, Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents while justifying the impugned Order passed by the Tribunal dismissing I.A. Nos. 3 and 4/2018 filed by the petitioner seeking the relief of grant of back wages, contended that the Tribunal while allowing the Application No. 5524/2014 by the Order dated 19.07.2017, though observed that the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits including seniority, notional fixation of pay and monetary benefits, if any, has not granted back wages. The said Order has reached finality. He further contended that in the disposed off matter, petitioner filed two interlocutory applications, one for restoring the Application and another for a direction to the respondents to pay back wages. The said two interlocutory applications were rightly rejected by the Tribunal. From the date of dismissal of the petitioner till reinstatement in terms of the Order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner has not worked. Therefore, she is not entitled to any back wages as rightly held by the Tribunal and therefore, sought to dismiss the writ petition. (IV) POINT FOR DETERMINATION 11. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for our consideration is: “Whether the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner praying to grant back wages, in the facts and circumstances of the present case?” 12. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record, carefully. (V) CONSIDERATION 13. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner was appointed as lecturer in the 3rd respondent-College on 27.01.2010 under scheduled caste category viz. Moger. The caste certificate of the petitioner came to be cancelled by the Tahsildar, Hubballi, by the Order dated 17.12.2013, on the basis of which, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the Order dated 26.06.2014, without holding any enquiry by the 2nd respondent, who is the disciplinary authority. 14. Moger. The caste certificate of the petitioner came to be cancelled by the Tahsildar, Hubballi, by the Order dated 17.12.2013, on the basis of which, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the Order dated 26.06.2014, without holding any enquiry by the 2nd respondent, who is the disciplinary authority. 14. Being aggrieved by the said Order of dismissal passed by the 2nd respondent, petitioner filed Application No. 5524/2014 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, mainly on the ground that the Order passed by the jurisdictional Tahsildar cancelling the caster certificate and the Order passed by the 2nd respondent dismissing the petitioner from service is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and the petitioner was not given a chance to put-forth her case before passing the dismissal order and therefore, sought the prayer as under: “(i) To quash the order bearing No. DTE 20 DEQ(1) dated 26.06.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent at Annexure A4 by the issue of a writ of certiorari, such other writ, direction or order as in the circumstances this Hon’ble Court deems fit. (ii) Issue writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to reinstate the applicant back into service as lecturer in Government Women Polytechnic College Bondel, Mangaluru, with full back wages from 26.06.2014, in the ends of justice and equity.” 15. The Tribunal, in Application No. 5524/2014, after hearing both the parties and considering the objections filed by the Special Counsel, by the Order dated 19.07.2017, in categorical terms recorded the finding as under: “11. On going through the operative portion of the order, we also feel that the Assistant Commissioner is not empowered to declare a particular caste as coming within the purview of the SC. But by reading the contents of the order passed on 06.09.2016 by the Assistant Commissioner as a whole, we are of the considered opinion the order is nothing but the restoration of the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Hubli, originally in favour of the applicant. 12. As already submitted, the criminal case registered against the applicant in Crime No. 245/2014 is already quashed by the Dharwad Bench of Hon’ble High Court and that has become final. The learned Special Counsel Sri Jagadeesh has fairly submitted that no appeal is filed by the government against the order of the Dharwad Bench before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. As already submitted, the criminal case registered against the applicant in Crime No. 245/2014 is already quashed by the Dharwad Bench of Hon’ble High Court and that has become final. The learned Special Counsel Sri Jagadeesh has fairly submitted that no appeal is filed by the government against the order of the Dharwad Bench before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. While quashing the criminal case, Hon’ble High Court has dealt in detail the events which have led to the declaration of ‘Moger Caste’ as one coming within the purview of Scheduled Caste. Admittedly, applicant or her parents have not played any fraud or misrepresented the authorities, in any manner. 15. Anyhow, as already submitted, the criminal case registered against the applicant is already quashed by the competent court invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad, who is the only competent authority to set-aside the order of cancellation of the caste certificate, has already passed an order. The said order passed by the Assistant Commissioner has not been challenged and thus it has become final. In the light of the unfolding of events and undisputed facts, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case in which the Application has to be allowed and necessary direction is to be given to the respondents to reinstate the applicant to duty within time frame granting all consequential benefits of seniority, notional fixation of pay etc.” 16. Accordingly, the Tribunal, allowed the Application No. 5524/2014 in toto and the Order of dismissal dated 26.06.2014 was set-aside and the respondent No. 2 was directed to reinstate the petitioner to duty within a period of two months from the date of the Order, without fail. It was further observed that, it need not be reiterated that the moment the petitioner is reinstated into service she is entitled for all consequential benefits inclusive of seniority, notional fixation of pay and monetary benefits, if any. The said order has reached finality. 17. It was further observed that, it need not be reiterated that the moment the petitioner is reinstated into service she is entitled for all consequential benefits inclusive of seniority, notional fixation of pay and monetary benefits, if any. The said order has reached finality. 17. It is also relevant to consider at this stage that, on the basis of the complaint made against the petitioner that she has obtained employment on the basis of the fake caste certificate, the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, Belagavi, lodged a complaint dated 19.04.2013 against the petitioner and others in Crime No. 245/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 196, 198, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(ix) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in Hubballi Sub Urban Police Station. The said criminal case was subject matter of Criminal Petition No. 102034/2014. The learned single Judge of this Court, considering the entire material on record, by the Order dated 07.11.2015 allowed the Criminal Petition, wherein, at paragraphs 6 and 7, it is held as under: “6. It is not in dispute that Moger caste people are in Dakshina Kannada as well as in Uttara Kannada districts of Karnataka State. It is the case of the prosecution that Moger caste people in Dakshina Kannada are classified as schedule caste, whereas Moger caste people in Uttara Kannada are classified under category-I, being fishermen by avocation. But the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 29.06.2011 in W.P. No. 11756/2010 held that the Moger caste people in the entire state of Karnataka are to be treated as schedule caste irrespective of their place of residence. Further, the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 30.11.2004 in W.P. No. 43169/2002 in the case of Shashikumar Kittur vs. The Government of Karnataka and Another held that persons belonging to Moger caste in any part of the State of Karnataka are entitled to seek certificates to the effect that they belong to schedule caste in the absence of any area restriction. It was observed in the said decision that if the State Government is of the opinion that inclusion of Moger caste of Uttara Kannada District in the category of schedule caste is unjustified on merits, it is for the State Government to move the Government of India and seek amendment. It was observed in the said decision that if the State Government is of the opinion that inclusion of Moger caste of Uttara Kannada District in the category of schedule caste is unjustified on merits, it is for the State Government to move the Government of India and seek amendment. So long as the Presidential Order stands and operates, that should be given effect to. Finally, it was held in the said decision that the caste certificates issued to persons belonging to Moger community of Uttara Kannada district as schedule caste cannot be faulted, inasmuch as the President’s order does not restrict the reservation only to those persons belonging to Moger caste who are residents of undivided Dakshina Kannada district and Kollegal Taluk. 7. Further, this Court while dealing with an Election Petition No. 4/1995 filed by one Shiroor challenging the election of one Vaidya Vivekananda Subraya of Sirsi Taluk in Uttara Kannada District who was elected to Karnataka Legislative Assembly from Sirsi constituency (reserved for schedule caste) by order dated 19.07.1996 held that Moger community to which Vaidya Vivekananda Subraya belongs to is a schedule caste mentioned at Item No. 78 in the Schedule-VII relating to Karnataka Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 and thereby the Election Petition filed by Shiroor challenging the election of Vaidya Vivekananda Subraya came to be dismissed with cost. These decisions have not been overruled. So long as these decisions are not set aside or challenged, it is rather difficult to say that the petitioners do not belong to schedule caste nor it can be said that the caste certificates issued to them are false. Such being the case, the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, Belgaum is not justified in initiating criminal proceedings against petitioners in Hubli Sub-Urban police station Crime No. 245/2014. Continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. As such, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners in Hubli Sub-Urban police station Crime No. 245/2014 pending on the file of the II Addl. Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dharwad, are hereby quashed.” The said Order passed by the learned single Judge quashing the Crime No. 245/2014 registered against the petitioner has reached finality. 18. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners in Hubli Sub-Urban police station Crime No. 245/2014 pending on the file of the II Addl. Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dharwad, are hereby quashed.” The said Order passed by the learned single Judge quashing the Crime No. 245/2014 registered against the petitioner has reached finality. 18. It is also relevant to state at this stage that on the interlocutory applications filed for a direction to grant back wages in Application No. 5524/2014 the Tribunal rejected the said interlocutory Applications by the Order dated 28.11.2018 which was subject matter of Writ Petition No. 109902/2019 before this Court. The coordinate Bench of this Court, after hearing both the parties by the Order dated 10.10.2019 allowed the writ petition and quashed the Order dated 28.11.2018 passed by the Tribunal on interlocutory Applications and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh, by a speaking Order. The said Order has reached finality. 19. Very interestingly, after remand by this Court, the Tribunal recorded a finding that, “Admittedly, she has been dismissed from service on the ground that she was appointed to the post of lecturer on production fake caste certificate. Thereafter, she approached the competent court and also this Tribunal and succeeded in her reinstatement in the service for that this Tribunal has already granted substantial relief. It is clear from the findings of the Court that she is not entitled to any back wages. Therefore, question of considering the case of the applicant once again to grant further relief of back wages does not arise.” Though the co-ordinate Bench of this Court specifically directed the Tribunal to assign reasons for denying back wages, except observing that petitioner is not entitled to any back wages, no reasons are assigned by the Tribunal while denying the back wages. 20. A careful reading of the earlier order dated 19.07.2017, passed by the Tribunal while allowing the Application No. 5524/2014 in toto and quashing the order dated 26.06.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent dismissing the petitioner from service, depicts that the Tribunal has specifically observed that, “the applicant or her parents have not played any fraud or misrepresented the authorities in any manner.” The said finding of the Tribunal has reached finality. 21. 21. At this stage, it is relevant to consider the following aspects: (i) The Order dated 07.11.2015 passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No. 102034/2014, quashing the proceedings in Crime No. 245/2014, has reached finality. (ii) The Order dated 19.07.2017 passed by the Tribunal in Application No. 5524/2014, allowing the Application in toto and setting aside the Order dated 26.06.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent, has reached finality. (iii) The observation made by the Tribunal that “the petitioner shall be reinstated into service and she is entitled to all consequential benefits including seniority, notional fixation of pay and monetary benefits, if any” has reached finality. (iv) Challenging the aforesaid findings and Orders, the State has not filed any Appeal or Writ Petition. 22. A careful perusal of the entire material on record clearly depicts that the petitioner or her parents have not played any fraud or misrepresented the authorities in getting caste certificate, in any manner. Thus, the Order directing for reinstatement has reached finality holding that there is no mistake on the part of the petitioner or her parents and it is the mistake committed by the authorities in dismissing the petitioner from service. Accordingly, once direction is issued to the authorities to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits including monetary benefits, it is clear that she is entitled to back wages. Unfortunately, on the wrong advise, the petitioner was pushed before the Tribunal for the second round and before this Court for third round of litigation. 23. When substantial order is passed by the Tribunal quashing the order of dismissal with a direction to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits including monetary benefits without there being denial of back wages, the petitioner is certainly entitled to back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. Our view is fortified by the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed) and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 324 , paragraphs 21, 22 and 39, wherein, it is held as under: “21. The word “reinstatement” has not been defined in the Act and the Rules. As per Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. The word “reinstatement” has not been defined in the Act and the Rules. As per Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. II, 3rd Edition, the word “reinstate” means to reinstall or re-establish (a person or thing in a place, station, condition, etc.) to restore to its proper or original state, to reinstate afresh and the word “reinstatement” means the action of reinstating; re-establishment. As per Law Lexicon, 2nd Edition, the word “reinstate” means to reinstall; to re-establish; to place again in a former state, condition or office; to restore to a state or position from which the object or person had been removed and the word “reinstatement” means establishing in former condition, position or authority (as) reinstatement of a deposed prince. As per Merriam Webster Dictionary, the word “reinstate” means to place again (as in possession or in a former position), to restore to a previous effective state. As per Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, “reinstatement” means: “To reinstall, to re-establish, to place again in a former state, condition, or office? To restore to a state or position from which the object or person had been removed.” 22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer employee relationship, the latter’s source of income gets dried up. Not only the concerned employee, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi judicial body or Court that the action taken by the employer is ultra-vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. Denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the concerned employee and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments. 39. Reverting to the case in hand, we find that the management’s decision to terminate the appellant’s service was preceded by her suspension albeit without any rhyme or reason and even though the Division Bench of the High Court declared that she will be deemed to have rejoined her duty on 14.3.2007 and entitled to consequential benefits, the management neither allowed her to join the duty nor paid wages. Rather, after making a show of holding inquiry, the management terminated her service vide order dated 15.6.2007. The Tribunal found that action of the management to be wholly arbitrary and vitiated due to violation of the rules of natural justice. The Tribunal further found that the allegations levelled against the appellant were frivolous. The Tribunal also took cognizance of the statement made on behalf of the appellant that she was not gainfully employed anywhere and the fact that the management had not controverted the same and ordered her reinstatement with full back wages.” 24. It is not the case the case of the respondent that the petitioner, after dismissal from service on 26.06.2014 till her reinstatement in pursuance of the Order dated 19.07.2017 passed by the Tribunal, was gainfully employed somewhere. It is not the case the case of the respondent that the petitioner, after dismissal from service on 26.06.2014 till her reinstatement in pursuance of the Order dated 19.07.2017 passed by the Tribunal, was gainfully employed somewhere. In the absence of the same, it is at the instance/mistake committed by the 2nd respondent in passing the orders without verifying the records properly, the petitioner was dismissed from service unilaterally. When the said order of dismissal was set-aside by the Tribunal in toto, naturally, the petitioner is entitled to back wages. Our view is also fortified by the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Director of Education and Others, AIR 2016 SC 1855 , wherein, at paragraph 37, it is held as under: “37. For the reasons stated supra, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order dated 28.07.2008 passed by the Delhi High Court is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside, by allowing this appeal. The retrenchment of the appellant from his service is bad in law. The respondent-Managing Committee is directed to reinstate the appellant at his post. Consequently, the relief of back wages till the date of this order is awarded to the appellant, along with all consequential benefits from the date of termination of his services. The back wages shall be computed on the basis of periodical revision of wages/salary. We further make it clear that the entire amount due to the appellant must be spread over the period between the period of retrenchment and the date of this decision, which amounts to 13 years, for the reason that the appellant is entitled to the benefit under Section 89 of the Income Tax Act. The same must be complied with within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.” 25. The material on record clearly depicts that the dismissal Order passed by the 2nd respondent found to be illegal, as held by the Tribunal in Application No. 5524/2014 and admittedly, the Order passed by the Tribunal has not been challenged by the State. Once the order of termination was found to be illegal, the employee is entitled to back wages, denial of the same is contrary to the law laid down by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, time and again. Once the order of termination was found to be illegal, the employee is entitled to back wages, denial of the same is contrary to the law laid down by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, time and again. Our view is fortified by the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Ravindran vs. Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, (2015) 7 SCC 222 , wherein, at paragraphs 16 to 19, it is held as under: “16. The learned Division Bench has erred in modifying the order passed by the learned single Judge into one of stoppage of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect and set aside the direction of the learned single Judge directing the respondent- Company to pay 25% back-wages to the appellant. The learned Division Bench failed to appreciate that the order passed by the learned single Judge was judicious, just and in consonance with the judgments of this Court in so far as awarding reinstatement and direction to pay 25% back-wages to the appellant whose services had been terminated illegally by the respondent-Company. The learned Division Bench erred in setting aside the award of payment of 25% back-wages to the appellant as passed by the learned single Judge which is contrary to the well established principle of law with regard to award of back-wages, when it is found that the order of termination is illegal. Therefore, the learned Division Bench has failed to follow the legal principles laid down by this Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs. Bharat Electronics Ltd. (1981) 3 SCC 225 wherein it was held thus: “17. But there is a catena of decisions which rule that where the termination is illegal especially where there is an ineffective order of retrenchment, there is neither termination nor cessation of service and a declaration follows that the workman concerned continues to be in service with all consequential benefits. No case is made out for departure from this normally accepted approach of the Courts in the field of social justice and we do not propose to depart in the case.” 17. No case is made out for departure from this normally accepted approach of the Courts in the field of social justice and we do not propose to depart in the case.” 17. After considering the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled for reinstatement with backwages and other consequential benefits as per the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324 , wherein it was held as under:- “22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer employee relationship, the latter's source of income gets dried up. Not only the concerned employee, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi judicial body or Court that the action taken by the employer is ultra-vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. Denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the concerned employee and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments. 18. Denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the concerned employee and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is allowed and having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent-Company is directed to reinstate the appellant in his post and pay him 50% back-wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement by calculating the same on the basis of revision of pay scales of the appellant and other consequential monetary benefits and pay the same to him within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment, failing which the back-wages shall be paid with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum after the expiry of the said six weeks. There shall be no order as to costs.” 26. For the reasons stated above, the point raised for consideration in the present writ petition has to be answered in the negative holding that the Tribunal is not justified in rejecting the interlocutory Applications filed by the petitioner, for back wages without assigning any reasons. 27. The material on record depicts that in spite of the Order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 109902/2019, the Tribunal has dismissed the interlocutory applications, without assigning any reasons, very strangely recording a finding that “it is clear from the findings of the Court that applicant is not entitled to back wages.” As already held by us, the Tribunal, while allowing the Application No. 5524/2014 in toto, by the Order dated 19.07.2017, has not recorded any such findings denying the back wages and admittedly, the respondents have not pointed out any such findings before this Court nor challenged the said Order. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the authorities shall not be allowed to misuse their official powers to deprive the liberty and the statutory right of the petitioner for back wages, since the unilateral dismissal of the petitioner from service is set-aside by the Tribunal while allowing the Application in toto and naturally, the petitioner is entitled to back wages in accordance with law. (VI) RESULT 28. In view of the above, we pass the following: ORDER: (i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned Order dated 30.07.2020 made in Application No. 5524/2014 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal is hereby quashed. (iii) The respondents, in particular, 2nd respondent is directed to pay back wages to the petitioner from the date of her dismissal from service till the date of reinstatement, with all consequential benefits flown therefrom, within 08 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, failing which, the back wages shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum, after expiry of 08 weeks. No order as to costs. Rule made absolute.