- (1.) The petitioner has been working with the respondents since 22.3.1988. By order dated 31.7.2002, her services were terminated by way of retrenchment. The petitioner challenged the order of retrenchment in CWP 13216 of 2002. On notice of motion being issued, the respondents appeared and made a statement that the order of retrenchment has been withdrawn by order dated 29.1.2004. It was further stated by the counsel for the respondent that the impugned order having been withdrawn by the respondents, the writ petition was rendered infructuous. Consequently, this Court disposed of the writ petition as having been rendered infructuous. This order was passed by this Court on 3.2.2004. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner made an application to the respondents for release of the consequential benefits for the period from 1.8.2002 till 2.2.2004, which included salary for the aforesaid period as well as the increments which were due in March 2002 and March 2004. The respondents, however, did not take any action on the aforesaid representation. The petitioner, therefore, served a legal notice dated 20.7.2004. Even the said legal notice was ignored by the respondents. Hence, the present writ petition with a prayer that the respondents be directed to release her salary and other consequential benefits along with interest. The respondents have filed a written-statement. It is stated that the order dated 29.1.2004 which was placed before this Court during the hearing of the petition, categorically stipulated that the retrenchment orders are withdrawn subject to the final decision of this Court. The petitioner was also directed to deposit all the amounts of compensation which had been paid to her by the respondents at the time of retrenchment. The order further stipulated that as regards the period of retrenchment, it would be decided on receipt of final order from the High Court. At the time when the writ petition was disposed of by this Court on the statement of the counsel for the respondents, this Court did not issue any directions with regard to the payment of the salary or the release of any other consequential benefits. Consequently, the petitioner cannot now be permitted to claim the salary for the period from 1.8.2002 till 2.2.2004 and the increments for the year 2003 and 2004.
(2.) Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the illegal order of retrenchment had been withdrawn by the respondents, they cannot now be permitted to say that the petitioner would not be entitled to consequential benefits. On the other hand, Mr. Sehgal submits that the impugned order of retrenchment was withdrawn subject to the final orders which were to be passed by this Court in CWP 13216 of 2002. The order passed by the Division Bench did not grant any relief for payment of salary or any other consequential relief.
(3.) We have considered the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.;