ORDER : (Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.) 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. 10.2 Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authority to grant all the consequential benefit to the petitioner from the date of punishment of compulsory retirement to date of reinstatement and set aside order dated 04.07.2011 issued by the Superintendent of Police Bilaspur only in respect of denial of back wage and consequential benefit on basis of no work no pay. 10.3 This Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent authority to pay the proper pay scale as the petitioner was getting at the time of punishment, which has revised from time to time, if he had not been terminated by way of compulsory retirement. 10.4 This Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct to pay the all the arrears after fixing the pay scale of the petitioner with interest, 10.5 To kindly direct the respondents to grant arrears of salary to the petitioner on the basis of pay scale of Rs. 750-12-870-15-945 /- which has been revise from time to time from 17.05.2001 to till date of actual payment with interest as he was drawing at the time of termination. 10.6 This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to further direct the respondent authority to pay the salary to the petitioner which he was getting at time of termination on the basis of revise pay scale with arrears. 10.7 To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.” 2. Facts of the present case are that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Constable on 05.07.1982 and in the year 1991, when the petitioner was posted at Police Station-Kota, District Bilaspur, a false complaint was made by the then Town Inspector before the Superintendent of Police and a charge-sheet was issued on 24.02.1993. An Enquiry Officer was appointed, and after receiving the enquiry report, a show-cause notice along with the enquiry report was served upon the petitioner on 14.04.1993. The petitioner filed a reply, and thereafter, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on 30.06.1993. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before the Inspector General of Police, and the same was dismissed vide Order dated 12.10.1993 and the second appeal was also dismissed on 03.02.1994. The petitioner filed a reply, and thereafter, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on 30.06.1993. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before the Inspector General of Police, and the same was dismissed vide Order dated 12.10.1993 and the second appeal was also dismissed on 03.02.1994. The petitioner filed an Original Application (O.A.) before the State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur bearing O.A. No. 2399/1996, and after the abolition of the tribunal, the matter was transferred to the High Court of Chhattisgarh, where it was registered as WPS No. 1407 of 2005. The petition was partially allowed, the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority were quashed, the matter was remitted back to the disciplinary authority to initiate a proceeding afresh, and the punishment was also found disproportionate. It was observed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court that ‘the petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement but without back wages. The reinstatement and other service benefits shall be solely for the purpose of completing the departmental proceedings, and the entitlement of the petitioner would be adjudicated by the authorities depending on the result of the disciplinary proceeding’. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the proceeding was again initiated and the Superintendent of Police vide Order dated 04.07.2011, reinstated the petitioner in services and further held that on the principle of no work-no pay, the petitioner would be entitled to salary and allowances. He further submitted that the pay slip for the month of August, 2014 would show that the petitioner was paid a basic salary of Rs. 6910 but the other consequential benefits were not granted to the petitioner. He also submitted that the petitioner was considered a fresh appointee, and therefore, he prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondents to grant other benefits such as notional seniority, promotion, etc., and a proper pay scale. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Bank of India and others Vs. Dragendra Singh Jadon reported in (2022) 8 SCC 378 . 4. On the other hand, Mr. Pranjal Shukla, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose. He submitted that the punishment of compulsory retirement was inflicted upon the petitioner on 30.06.1993, against which, the appeal that had been preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. Dragendra Singh Jadon reported in (2022) 8 SCC 378 . 4. On the other hand, Mr. Pranjal Shukla, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose. He submitted that the punishment of compulsory retirement was inflicted upon the petitioner on 30.06.1993, against which, the appeal that had been preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. He further submitted that this Court vide Order dated 25.10.2010 remitted back the matter to the Superintendent of Police up to the stage at which notice was issued to the petitioner on 24.02.1993. He also submitted that this Court further observed that the petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement but without back wages and other benefits were left with the discretion of the authority. It is further contended that the Superintendent of Police vide Order dated 04.07.2011 passed an order of reinstatement with no work-no pay. It is also contended that the Superintendent of Police has rightly passed the order of reinstatement with no work-no pay and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. From a perusal of the documents, it appears that the punishment of compulsory retirement was inflicted upon the petitioner vide Order dated 30.06.1993 and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. In the Writ Petition, the orders passed by the authorities were set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Superintendent of Police. It was also observed that the petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement in service but back wages were denied. The Superintendent of Police reinstated the petitioner but denied the back wages and treated the period of absence as no work-no pay. The petitioner was getting a basic salary of Rs. 6910 in the month of August, 2014, which was much less than the salary of similarly situated Police Constables. When the petitioner was reinstated in the service by the disciplinary authority pursuant to the order passed by this Court, he was restored to his position to the date on which he was removed from services. The authorities concerned cannot exclude the period from the date of removal of the petitioner to the date of his reinstatement and treat the same as completely dies-non and also cannot allow the petitioner to get the service benefits attributable to him by virtue of the aforesaid length of service. The authorities concerned cannot exclude the period from the date of removal of the petitioner to the date of his reinstatement and treat the same as completely dies-non and also cannot allow the petitioner to get the service benefits attributable to him by virtue of the aforesaid length of service. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dragendra Singh Jadon (supra) while dealing with a similar issue in paras 10,12,17,18 and 19 held as under:- “10. By a judgment and order dated 7th August 2015, the learned Single Judge of the High Court, allowed the Writ Petition. The Single Judge held :- “6. The Tribunal, upon reference made to it by the Central Government to adjudicate as to whether the respondents were justified in removing the petitioner from service, has answered the reference in negative and in favour of the petitioner-workman holding that petitioner was wrongly removed from service. Accordingly, the Tribunal ordered for reinstatement, but without back wages. Legal meaning attributed to word “reinstatement” is beyond any cavil of doubt as by catena of decisions of Hon’ble the Apex Court and various High Courts, word “reinstatement” has been unequivocally explained to the effect that once the Authority or Court orders for reinstatement of an employee, then the position of that employee is restored back to the date on which he was removed from services. As such, the respondents were not justified having excluded the period from the date of removal of the petitioner to the date of his reinstatement and treating the same as completely dies non and also in not allowing the petitioner to get the service benefits attributable to him by virtue of the aforesaid length of service. In the opinion of this Court, the order (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent-Bank is not in conformity with the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the impugned order, so far as it relates to denying benefits to the petitioner for the intervening period (the period from the date of removal of the petitioner from service to the date of his reinstatement), excepting denial of back wages is quashed and it is held that the petitioner shall be held entitled for all the benefits except back wages construing him to be in service from the date of removal till the date of actual reinstatement in service. Needless to mention that consequent upon the reinstatement, petitioner is entitled to regular salary from the date of Award subject to adjustment of the amount already paid under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act.” 12. Where an objection to the maintainability of any application/suit on an issue of law is not expressly dealt with, but the application/suit is entertained and disposed of on merits, the objection is deemed to have been rejected. The mere fact that an issue may not specifically have been dealt with, or reasons not specifically disclosed for decision on that issue, would not vitiate a judgment and order, that is otherwise correct. 17. What was in issue in the earlier writ petition being Writ Petition No. 3091 of 2009(S) was the legality of the Award and other consequential benefits. The cause of action for Writ Petition No. 1571 of 2013 arose subsequently. The issue in the later writ petition was not whether the Respondent was entitled to back wages for the period prior to the date of the Award, which issue had been decided in the earlier writ petition, but the issue of fixation of pay and seniority upon reinstatement in service. The question in the second writ petition was, whether, for the purposes of seniority and fixation of pay, the Respondent was to be treated as a newly appointed employee and that too with effect from 18th August 2012, when the Award directing his reinstatement was dated 10th September 2008. 18. In our considered view, the learned Single Bench of the High Court rightly granted relief to the Respondent. By the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Appeal of the Appellants and directed that the Respondent would have to be treated in service from the date of removal till the date of actual reinstatement in service and would accordingly be entitled to seniority and the right to be considered for promotion, but would not be entitled to back wages. 19. We find no infirmity with the concurrent findings of the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court. There is a difference between reappointment and reinstatement. Reinstatement means to return a person or thing to its previous position or status. An order of reinstatement puts a person back to the same position.” 8. 19. We find no infirmity with the concurrent findings of the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court. There is a difference between reappointment and reinstatement. Reinstatement means to return a person or thing to its previous position or status. An order of reinstatement puts a person back to the same position.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court made it clear that ‘There is a difference between reappointment and reinstatement. Reinstatement means to return a person or thing to its previous position or status. An order of reinstatement puts a person back in the same position’. The outcome of reinstatement would be that the petitioner would be entitled to get seniority and the right to be considered for promotion, but would not be entitled to get back wages. 9. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner is permitted to make a detailed representation before the respondent authorities in light of the facts and law discussed above, and in turn, the authorities concerned are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in an objective manner and take an appropriate decision strictly in accordance with the law, preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of.