K.S.JHAVERI, A.G.URAIZEE, jj. - (1.) WE have heard learned advocates appearing for the parties.
(2.) THIS intra -court Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 08.11.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 4223 of 1996 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The original petitioners had challenged the order dated 31.07.1986 by which the husband of original petitioner no. 1 ­ employee ­ now deceased (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was made to retire compulsorily. However, the said order was withdrawn vide order dated 25.01.1995 as the deceased was acquitted by the trial court and the Criminal Appeal filed by the State Government was dismissed. However, this Court had directed the deceased to challenge the order dated 25.01.1995 by filing fresh petition and did not grant consequential benefit from the date of order of compulsory retirement till date of retirement. The appellants therefore filed Special Civil Application No. 4223 of 1996 challenging non grant of backwages when order of compulsory retirement had been withdrawn by way of reinstatement. The writ petition was, however, dismissed by the learned Single Judge which is the subject matter of this appeal.
(3.) LEARNED advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge seriously erred in accepting the case of the respondents that the order of compulsory retirement had been withdrawn on a request made by the deceased employee vide application dated 27.08.1989. He submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered that the order of compulsory retirement was withdrawn by order dated 25.01.1995 whereas the deceased employee had attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.1994. He submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that the deceased employee cannot be permitted to take advantage subsequently and pray for backwages.;