- (1.) The petitioner-respondent was made to retire on 31st January, 2008. However, that order was withdrawn by the respondents-appellants themselves on 17th April, 2008. Before that, the petitioner-respondent preferred writ petition before this Court on 27th February, 2008. Before the learned Single Judge, it has been stated by the respondent-appellant that the order under challenge has already been withdrawn and petitioner's date of birth has been corrected so that the petitioner may retire on 31.1.2009. The impugned order was passed on 19th September, 2008 and the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, awarding back-wages and interest @ 10% and imposing cost of Rs. 10,000/- upon the respondents-appellants. Aggrieved by the award of back-wages and imposition of cost, the appellant preferred this appeal. According to the Learned Counsel for the appellant, when the order dated 17.4.2008 had already been withdrawn by the appellant and had been communicated to the petitioner-respondent, yet the petitioner-respondent did not come to join duty. It is also submitted that immediately after the order dated 17.4.2008 withdrawing respondent's retirement from 31.1.2008, the respondent should have moved an appropriate application before this Court for withdrawal to the writ petition to take the benefit of the order dated 17.4.2008. It is also submitted that since the respondent did not pray for payment of back-wages, learned Single Judge committed an error of law in awarding back-wages and imposing cost in such a matter.
(2.) It is an admitted case that the respondent was made to retire wrongly by the appellant and therefore, till the order dated 17.4.2008, the petitioner-respondent could not discharge the duty because of the fault of the appellant itself. Not only this, but the condition imposed in the order dated 17.4.2008 withdrawing respondent's superannuation that the order would be implemented only after disposal of the writ petition by the High Court prevented the petitioner-respondent from joining the duty on account of the fact that the implementation of the said order was stayed by the respondent-appellant itself even after withdrawal of the order of superannuation of the writ petitioner.
(3.) We find from the record that one Bench Slip was submitted by the writ petitioner on 16th July, 2008 with the prayer for listing the matter in Court because the writ petitioner's grievance had been considered by the appellant and in view of the said prayer, the matter was listed in Court obviously for passing appropriate order.;