- (1.) Learned counsel Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha for the petitioner and Mr. Indrajit Sinha assisted by Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey representing the respondent company are present through Video Conferencing.
(2.) The substituted petitioner is the widow of the employee who had approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 16.03.2018 passed in OA/051/00119/2016 (Annexure-7) by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench at Ranchi. The applicant / employee had approached the learned CAT for a limited relief for payment of salary from 20.04.2004 till he was reinstated on 10.02.2010 on the plea that the respondent / employer had illegaly caused his premature superannuation. Being aggrieved by the superannuation notice dated 27.10.2003, which was to the effect that on attaining the age of 60 on 24.04.2004, he will be superannuated from service w.e.f. 30.04.2004, petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5445 of 2007 i.e., after 3 years . Learned Writ Court passed an order on 27.06.2009 in the following terms: "The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- I. For quashing the office order/ letter dated 27.10.2003 by which the petitioner has been served with a notice that on attaining the age of 60 years on 24.04.2004, he will be superannuated from service w.e.f 30.04.2004, even though according to the date of birth, as mentioned in his matriculation certificate and in other documents, submitted by the petitioner at the time of his appointment on 24.04.1972, the petitioner will attain the age of superannuation i.e.60 years, on 7.6.2014. II. For a direction upon the respondents concerned to immediately re-induct the petitioner into the service of the company along with all legally payable dues, benefits etc. as the respondents are bound to accept the date of birth of an employee as correct and final as per Implementation Instruction No.76 of National Coal Wage Agreement III. In the light of the Full Bench Judgment reported in Kamta Prasad v. B.C.C.L . as reported in 2007(3) JLJR p.726 followed by several judgments including the judgments of this court the respondents are directed to follow the same in its true letter and spirit and pass a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Put up this case after two months".
(3.) The writ petition was kept pending and perhaps has been dismissed for default in 2017 as stated by learned counsel for the respondents. Pursuant to the directions of the Writ Court, employee was reinstated in service vide order dated 10.02.2010. He joined on the same date. However, in the intervening period between 30.04.2004 till the date of his joining on 10.02.2010 pursuant to his reinstatement was treated as "dies non". In this background, employee approached the learned CAT for salary for the intervening period till his reinstatement. Learned CAT after considering the rival stand of the parties held as under: "11. We noted that although the applicant was superannuated w.e.f. 30.04.2004 he approached the Hon'ble High Court only in 2007 i.e. almost after three years. Therefore the applicant was never prompt in pursuing his remedies. Further, the Hon'ble High Court ordered in 2009, and therefore, it can be safely assumed that applicant was never following the matter diligently having never prayed for early hearing of the matter. However, We noted that the applicant was taken back only in February 2010 i.e. eight months after the order despite the clear mandate of the High Court as on 26.07.2009 to consider and issue speaking order within two months. 12. Nevertheless, we failed to discern any clear direction from the High Court in regard to reinstatement or back wages. We feel that the applicant ought to have sought an order for back wages from the Hon'ble High Court itself. We further noted that in Kamta Pandey (supra) no specific direction for back wages were given. It would be highly unfair on our part to read something into the order that is not granted by the Hon'ble High Court. 13. Be that as it may, the respondents having failed to act in accordance with the mandate of the Hon'ble High Court were deliberately at fault in delaying the matter for a further period of six months. Therefore, in all fairness, for the period , the applicant was prevented from earning salary, he deserved to be compensated appropriately in terms of salary since he was taken back ultimately. 14. We further note that the implication of "dies non" is that the period of service between the erstwhile superannuation and the subsequent reinstatement is wiped out from the service period yielding no benefit to the applicant either in terms of salary or as service enuring to his pension. In view of his reinstatement, we modify the treatment of intervening period of "dies non" to that of a period to be reckoned for all other purposes excluding salary but including pension and pensionary benefits. 15. Since the applicant has superannuated by now, the respondents shall appropriately assess his pension by treating the intervening period from 20.04.2004 till his joining as period spent on duty for all purposes other then salary. 16. In the aforesaid backdrop let appropriate order revising the pension, be issued within three months and the arrear salary for the period (two months from the date of judgment till reinstatement) be released in favour of the applicant within one month thereafter." ;