“7. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of the record so far as the first part of dispute as to the consequential relief is concerned, there cannot be any doubt that once when the order of termination dated 01.04.1986 has been set aside by the High Court of MP, the position would stand as if the order of termination was never in existence. By all means, the petitioner has to be brought back on the same place that he was holding on the date of termination i.e. prior to 01.04.1986 which undisputedly was a post of Head Clerk-cumAccountant-cum-Deputy Revenue Inspector. Moreover, since the High Court on 23.07.1988 in MP 79/88 had specifically ordered for reinstatement in service with consequential benefits, it implies that the petitioner would have to be brought back to the post of Head Clerk-cum-Accountant-cum-Deputy Revenue Inspector and he would be entitled for all the wages and other benefits that he was drawing prior to his termination. Even if Annexure P-2 is taken into consideration, it does not reflect that it has a retrospective effect. The reference in the decision on the basis of which Annexure P-2 has been passed also is a decision that of the year 2000 itself. Thus, till Annexure P-2 was passed on 23.11.2000, there cannot be any dispute whatsoever that the petitioner would be entitled for all the benefits that he was drawing on the date of termination i.e. on the post of Head Clerk-cum-Accountant-cum-Deputy Revenue Inspector.
