Jay Ram Majhi vs Union Of India And Ors

This appeal is filed after a delay of 418 days, and this interlocutory application has been filed for condoning this delay.

In the facts of this case and in view of the statements made in the interlocutory application, the delay in filing the appeal, is hereby, condoned.

I.A. No. 11548 of 2018 stands allowed.

L.P.A. No. 787 of 2018

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Union of India.

The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.09.2017, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, in W.P. (S) No. 4613 of 2008, which was allowed with other analogous writ applications, in which, the compulsory retirement of the writ petitioners, including the appellant herein, was set-aside by the Hon'ble Single Judge, and they were directed to be reinstated in service. The appellant is aggrieved by the fact that the back wages have been denied by the Hon'ble Single Judge to the appellant also, whose case stood on a different footing, than the other petitioners, whose writ applications were also allowed along with the writ application of the appellant.

The appellant was working as ASI in the Central Industrial Security Force, posted at Bokaro Steel Ltd., Bokaro. He was compulsory retired along with the other members of the Force. The order of compulsory retirement was issued on 15.02.2008, which was challenged before the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority, and the Revisional Authority also, by its order dated 28.07.2008, maintained the order of compulsory retirement against the appellant. The appellant challenged the orders, passed against him, in W.P. (S) No. 4613 of 2008, wherein, by order dated 21.11.2008, the operation of the impugned order passed against him was stayed. Thereafter by another order dated 23.12.2009, passed in W.P. (S) No. 4613 of 2008, the matter was admitted and the stay order was continued during the pendency of this writ application, which was ultimately allowed by order dated 22.09.2017.

It is an admitted position that the appellant was reinstated back in service, pursuant to the stay order, passed by this Court, on 16.05.2012, and even in the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the Union of India, this fact stands admitted, stating that the appellant joined his post on 21.05.2012 (A/N). Thereafter, the appellant superannuated from service with effect from 28.02.2013.

In the backdrop of these facts, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that since the appellant was reinstated back in service, pursuant to the interim order passed in his favour, there was no occasion for denying the back wages to the appellant by the Hon'ble Single Judge.

In reply to this submission, learned counsel for the Union of India has submitted that the appellant has failed to prove specifically that from the date of compulsory retirement from service, till the date of his reinstatement, he was not gainfully employed elsewhere, and as such, he was not entitled to the back wages for the period he was out from service.

Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that the appellant was compulsory retired from service on 15.02.2008, and revisional order was passed, confirming the order of the compulsory retirement on 28.07.2008. The appellant challenged the said orders in the W.P. (S) No. 4613 of 2008, and stay order was passed in his favour on 21.11.2008 itself. In that view of the matter, if the appellant was not reinstated in service from 21.11.2008 to 15.05.2012, it was not the fault of the appellant, rather the responsibility lied on the respondent authorities themselves. Admittedly, the order of reinstatement was passed on 16.05.2012.

As such, we are of the considered view that the appellant could not be denied his salary and allowances upon his reinstatement. It appears that in view of the fact that three writ applications were allowed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, by common order dated 22.09.2017, the fact that the appellant was re-instated in service pursuant to the interim order of stay passed in his favour, missed the attention of the Hon'ble Single Judge. In that view of the matter, that portion of the impugned order passed by the Writ Court, whereby the benefits of back wages have been denied to the appellant, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Accordingly, that portion of the impugned order dated 22.09.2017, passed by the Writ Court, in W.P. (S) No. 4613 of 2008, whereby the benefit of back wages have been denied to the appellant, is hereby, set aside, with respect to the appellant only. We make it clear that this order shall not govern the other writ petitioners, whose writ applications were also allowed by the aforesaid order dated 22.09.2017. The case of the other writ petitioners shall be guided by any specific order passed in their case, if any.

Consequently, we hereby, direct that the appellant shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits for the period, he was out of service, treating it to be on duty period, and the respondent authorities are directed to settle all the dues of the appellant within a period of 2 months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

This Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly, allowed with the directions as indicated hereinabove.