Satyendra Kumar vs Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority & Ors.

Date : 10-08-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority.

The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

The petitioner was appointed on 24.05.1976 in the erstwhile North Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Muzaffarpur on the post of Assistant Development Officer (Chemical). In the year 2003, all the Industrial Area Development Authorities were merged together to form Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BIADA’). Accordingly, the services of the petitioner was merged with BIADA. On 27.05.2005, the services of the petitioner was terminated by the Managing Director, BIADA on the ground that the initial appointment of the petitioner was illegal per se. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the said decision, preferred C.W.J.C. No.6364 of 2005. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 22.05.2007 and the termination order of the petitioner was set aside, with a direction to the BIADA to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. The petitioner submitted his joining on 18.06.2007, however, the Managing Director, BIADA did not accept his joining. After persuasion at different level, the Industries Department vide its direction dated 22.06.2007, directed the Managing Director, BIADA to accept the joining of the petitioner. The same was accepted on 23.06.2007 and he was posted at Export Promotion Industrial Park, Hajipur. The petitioner, after giving his joining requested for payment of his salary, which was released in the old scale as per the 4^th Pay Revision recommendation. The CPF was never paid to the petitioner. Merely two days after his joining, a memo of charge was issued to the petitioner on 30.06.2007, wherein five charges were levelled against him and he was directed to submit his reply within a fortnight before the Secretary, BIADA, who was appointed as the enquiry officer. No list of witnesses or documents were supplied to the petitioner, along with the memo of charge, however, the petitioner submitted his reply on 12.07.2007, whereby he denied all the charges levelled against him. On 12.07.2007 again a memo of charge was served upon the petitioner by the Managing Director, which contained two charges against him. The petitioner was again directed to submit his reply within a period of three days, which he did by filing his reply on 16.07.2007. He again denied all the charges, which were levelled against him. It is further case of the petitioner that prior to submission of the reply dated 16.07.2007, upon the direction of the Managing Director, the Secretary issued another charge sheet and directed the petitioner to submit his reply within three days, which again he did by filing his reply on 18.07.2007. On 17.07.2007, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, directing him to explain as to why he was found absent from duty at 11:30 a.m. on 16.07.2007. The petitioner again submitted his reply and finally the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 25.07.2007. The petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.11526 of 2007. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was heard by a Hon’ble Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court, along with its connected cases and vide order dated 05.05.2009, the writ petition was allowed and so far the question of payment of back wages was concerned, the Hon’ble Single Judge observed that the authority in that event is expected to proceed in accordance with the guidelines suggested in the case of Novartis India Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. [(2009) 3 SCC 124]. The petitioner submitted his joining and claimed for back wages by filing a representation, however the petitioner was put under suspension. The suspension of the petitioner was revoked on 25.08.2009, however, the Managing Director, BIADA by his order contained in Memo No.6690 dated 14.10.2009 rejected the claim for back wages of the petitioner, without going into the details, the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Novartis India Ltd. (supra). The departmental proceeding, which was initiated against the petitioner, immediately after his joining, culminated in issuance of minor punishment against the petitioner of Censure and it was further directed that the period during which the petitioner remained under suspension will be counted for giving other benefits to the petitioner, however he will not be paid any salary for the said period, except for the subsistence allowance which was paid to the petitioner. It was further directed that the period of termination of the petitioner i.e. 01.08.2007 to 19.05.2009 will be counted for payment of gratuity etc. and for continuity in service. The said order of punishment was passed vide Memo No.4298 dated 28.06.2010 issued under the signature of the Managing Director, BIADA. Being aggrieved with the order of punishment, the petitioner filed a review application before the Managing Director, however the same was rejected. Thereafter the petitioner preferred appeal bearing Appeal Case No.02/2011 before the Chairman BIADA-cum-Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar, Patna. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed by the appellate authority vide order dated 14.06.2011 and the order passed by the Managing Director, BIADA dated 28.06.2010 was set aside. The petitioner again filed an application before the Managing Director, BIADA on 23.05.2012, wherein he requested for making payment of back wages for the period August, 2007 to 18.06.2009 and for payment of differential amount of salary for the period under suspension w.e.f. 19.06.2009 to 30.08.2009. By the impugned order contained in Memo No.2850 dated 07.05.2013 issued under the signature of the Managing Director, BIADA, the claim of the petitioner for payment of back wages was rejected, however no order was passed on the application/representation with regard to payment of his salary for the period during which he remained under suspension, after deducting the subsistence allowance, which was paid to him during the period under suspension.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the order of compulsory retirement was set aside by this Hon’ble Court and the petitioner was permitted to join and the respondent authorities were directed to take decision on the payment of back wages to the petitioner, in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Novartis India Ltd. (supra), it was incumbent upon the respondent authorities of BIADA to decide the same after considering the judgment of the Novartis India Ltd. (supra). He submits that the respondent authorities of BIADA rejected the claim of the petitioner only on the ground that he failed to show his bona fide that he was not working for the said period, during which he was compulsorily retired and they failed to discharge their own obligation of verifying the fact, once the petitioner denied before them that he was not gainfully employed anywhere else during the said period. The authority concerned rejected the claim of the petitioner for back wages by noting that the petitioner failed to prove that he was not gainfully employed anywhere else and only a bald statement has been made by the petitioner. He submits that it was incumbent upon the authority of BIADA to prove the facts otherwise. He further submits that when the appellate authority by his order dated 14.06.2011 proceeded to set aside the order of punishment dated 28.06.2010, the Managing Director, BIADA was under obligation to make payment of the salary for the period, during which the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service by the authorities of BIADA and the payment of salary, after deducting the amount paid to him for the period under suspension. He submits that the order passed by the Managing Director, BIADA on 07.05.2013 is fit to be set aside inasmuch as that the authority concerned did not take into consideration the order passed by the appellate authority and failed to consider the fact that on the date of passing of the order by him, no order of punishment existed.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the BIADA would submit that this Hon’ble Court, while allowing the writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.11526 of 2007, along with its analogous cases vide order dated 05.05.2009, directed the authorities of BIADA to proceed in accordance with the guidelines suggested in the case of Novartis India Ltd. (supra) and the Managing Director, BIADA, while passing the order, considered the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Novartis India Ltd. (supra) and since the petitioner did not submit a chit of paper to suggest that he was not gainfully employed, during the period he was compulsorily retired from service. It is submitted that it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to prove that he was not gainfully employed during the said period and since the petitioner failed to prove the said fact, the Managing Director proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner for payment of his salary for the period during which he was compulsorily retired and the period during which he was under suspension. She submits that since the petitioner was compulsorily retired for almost two years, the BIADA took work from one another person on the same post and he was paid his entire salary, therefore it would be harsh, if the BIADA authorities would be directed to make payment of salary for the said period, since for the same work, the BIADA would be forced to make payment to two persons.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the BIADA while relying upon the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the BIADA would submit that legal opinion was taken by the authority and as advised, the above claim of back wages by the petitioner for the period 01.08.2007 to 18.06.2009 was placed before the Board of Directors in its 41^st meeting which was held on 13.06.2011. In the said meeting vide Agenda No.21, the authorities after considering the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Novartis India Ltd. (supra) and in terms of Clause 2.8.5 of Part II of the 2007 Regulations of the BIADA, which gives power to the Board of Directors to review any order passed by an authority, proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner in the 42^nd meeting of the Board of Directors held on 15.04.2013 vide Agenda No.17.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that the petitioner was compulsorily retired along with some others. The petitioner and others filed writ petition. The writ petition filed by the petitioner bearing C.W.J.C. No.11526 of 2007 was heard along with its analogous cases and the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 05.05.2009, while allowing the writ petition and setting aside the order of compulsory retirement, directed the authorities of BIADA to take decision with regard to payment of back wages for the period, during which the petitioner was under compulsory retirement, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case Novartis India Ltd. (supra). It appears that the petitioner gave his joining in BIADA and was immediately thereafter proceeded with departmentally for certain other charges and was also put under suspension. Finally vide order dated 14.10.2009 issued under the signature of the Manging Director, BIADA, the representation of the petitioner for back wages was rejected. It further appears that the departmental proceeding, which was initiated against the petitioner, after his rejoining vide Memo No.2507 dated 14.07.2007 culminated in the order of punishment issued under the signature of the Managing Director, BIADA contained in Memo No.4298 dated 28.06.2010, whereby it was directed that the petitioner would not be entitled for any salary for the period he remained under suspension, except the subsistence allowance, which was paid to him. Apart from the above, punishment of Censure for the year 2007-08 was also passed and it was further directed that the period of compulsory retirement i.e. 01.08.2007 to 19.05.2009 will be counted for the purposes of continuity in service and for payment of gratuity etc. The petitioner assailed the said order by filing Appeal Case No.02/2011. The appellate authority i.e. the Chairman, BIADA, Patna by his order dated 14.06.2011 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner by setting aside the order dated 28.06.2010, passed by the Managing Director, BIADA. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner filed a representation before the Managing Director, BIADA for payment of his salary on 23.05.2012. During pendency of the appeal of the petitioner, the Board of Governors of BIADA in its 42^nd meeting dated 15.04.2013 vide Agenda No.17 decided to review the order passed by the appellate authority, in terms of the power vested under Clause 2.8.5 of Part II of the 2007 Regulations of the BIADA and it was decided that in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well as this Hon’ble Court, the payments of back wages cannot be made to the petitioner. It appears that the said decision was taken by the Board of Governors in view of order dated 08.04.2011 passed in L.P.A. No.684 of 2010 (Ram Pravesh Singh Vs. Managing Director, BIADA), whereby the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court affirmed the order dated 08.03.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No.2389 of 2010 (Ram Pravesh Singh Vs. The Managing Director, BIADA), by which the Hon’ble Single Judge rejected the claim of the said Ram Pravesh Singh for payment of back wages, who was similarly situated to the petitioner. It appears from the documents that the said Ram Pravesh Singh also approached this Hon’ble Court along with the petitioner and his writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.11196 of 2007 was also heard and allowed vide order dated 05.05.2009 by the Hon’ble Single Judge and while setting aside the order of compulsory retirement, the authorities were directed to take decision with regard to back wages in terms of the order passed in Novartis India Ltd. (supra).

In view of the fact that similarly situated person, in whose case also the order for payment of back wages was rejected on the ground that in place of him some other person worked and was paid wages and the said order was upheld by Hon’ble Single Judge and the Letters Patent Appeal against the orders of the Hon’ble Single Judge was also dismissed, this Court has no other option but to maintain judicial parity and decorum, to dismiss the claim of the petitioner for payment of back wages. So far the payment of salary for the period, during which the petitioner remained under suspension, is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the order denying the salary for the said period dated 28.06.2010 was set aside by the appellate authority on 14.06.2011 and the Board of Governors, while reviewing the order of the appellate authority with regard to back wages, did not take any decision with regard to payment of salary for the period under suspension or with regard to Censure, therefore, the petitioner would be entitled for payment of salary, after deducting the subsistence allowance, which was paid to him during the period under suspension. The salary for the said period must be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.

With the aforementioned observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.