Sengara Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 2 August, 1983
In this connection reasoning given in Sengara Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. may be usefully be adopted. In the aforesaid case their lordships ordered that the appellant must receive the same benefit which those reinstated received in the absence of any distinguishing features in their cases and accordingly they were ordered to be reinstated service. No orders for treating the intervening period as leave due could be made after the orders of reinstatement in service were made in favour of the petitioners. The order in case of each of the petitioners that the intervening period is to be treated as leave due is quashed. As the non-petitioners have failed to make the order as envisaged by Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 2044, they are, therefore, directed to make payment to the petitioners the salary and other allowances under Rule 2044(1) from the date of compulsory retirement until they were reinstated.