Decided on March 14,2019

P Radhakrishnan Appellant


K. Ravichandrabaabu, J. - (1.) The present writ petition is filed to quash the proceedings of the respondent dated 14.11.2014 in the memo Na Ka No.E5/7001/1997 and for consequential direction to the respondent to treat the period of non employment from 31.1.1996 to 31.1.2005 as one spent on duty, calculate the pay and allowances accordingly and pay the petitioner 50% of pay after such cancellation after adjusting the amount already paid.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is as follows: While the petitioner was working as Superintendent/Double Lock Officer under the respondent, he was removed from service by order of the respondent dated 31.1.1996 in relation to the chargememo dated 02.03.1995. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.12737 of 1997 and the same was allowed by order dated 06.01.2005, directing the respondents therein to reinstate the petitioner into service within one month, however leaving it open to the disciplinary authority to continue with the enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer and further by observing that the petitioner is entitled to the salary from the date of his reinstatement and that the question of backwages would be decided on the outcome of the fresh enquiry. Thereafter, consequential order was passed on 24.03.2005, permitting the petitioner to retire from service on 31.01.2005 on attaining the age of superannuation however by reserving the right to proceed with disciplinary proceedings. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.12035 of 2005 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 02.02.2011, directing the respondent to release the retirement benefits however, by denying the backwages, since the petitioner was already removed from service on 31.01.1996. The said order was challenged in W.A.No.2432 of 2011. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 04.03.2014, allowed the appeal in part by directing the management to pay 50% of the backwages to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with the impugned Memo dated 14.11.2014, wherein the respondent calculated the arrears on the basis of the pay drawn on the date of removal from service and thus, committed illegality. The respondent has to treat the entire period of non employment from 31.01.1996 to 31.01.2005 as one spent on duty and bound to calculate the arrears as if the petitioner was in employment and the petitioner should be given the entire benefit of revised pay and allowance applicable to the post of Superintendent and thereafter, be paid 50% of such calculation.
(3.) The respondent filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated as follows: Charges were framed against the petitioner through the charge memo dated 02.03.1995. After an enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service through the proceedings dated 31.01.1996. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation was also rejected on 26.07.1996. Challenging the punishment order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.12737 of 1997 before this Court. On 06.01.2005, this Court quashed the order of punishment with liberty to proceed the case afresh from the stage of denova enquiry. This Court has also ordered to reinstate the petitioner with further observation that payment of backwages would be depending upon the result of fresh enquiry. The order passed by this Court was received by the Corporation only on 07.02.2005 and in the meantime, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2005. As such, the petitioner was ordered to be deemed to have taken back into service of the Corporation with effect from 06.01.2005 and deemed to have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.01.2005, without prejudice to the disciplinary action pending against him. An Enquiry Officer was appointed through the proceedings dated 24.03.2005. The petitioner challenged the said proceedings in W.P.No.12035 of 2005. This Court granted interim stay of the proceedings. Under such circumstances, the present impugned order was issued. By an order dated 04.03.2014, in W.A.No.1276 and 2432 of 2011, this Court modified the order made in W.P.No.12035 of 2005 dated 02.02.2011, by directing the Management to pay 50% of the backwages to the employee. The 50% of the backwages for the period from 1996 to 2005 works out to Rs.2,73,171/- and the same was paid to the petitioner after making certain adjustment towards house building advance and interest thereon. There is no specific mention in the Division Bench judgment to treat the entire period of non employment of the petitioner as the one spent on duty. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get full backwages.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.