Anand G. Joshi vs Maharashtra State Financial Corporation and Others

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned: counsel for the applicant rightly contends that in view of the order dated 25/11/1991 the management was wrong in not granting the fitment in the revised pay scale as if the applicant continued in service. By the order of 25/11/1991 we had made it amply clear that "his absence will not be treated as break in service for any purpose whatsoever except the claim for back wages". We think that the language is plain and does riot admit of two interpretations. The only interpretation that can be placed is that for all purposes except back wages, i.e. monetary benefits, the break in service will not be treated as a break. That being so the applicant-petitioner is entitled to be treated as in service for the purpose of fitment in the revised scale but he would not be entitled to any monetary benefit up to the date of the order of this court. Thereafter, on his being so fitted in the revised scale, the difference in wage and other benefits accruing after the order will be available to him. The contempt petition will stand disposed of accordingly with the direction to implement this order within four weeks from today.