Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 20.10.2003, whereby representation of the petitioner for payment of back wages has been denied and further prayer has been made for payment of post retiral benefits in favour of petitioner no. 1.
(2.) The facts, in brief, is that the petitioners, who were working in collieries of M/s BCCL were made accused in a criminal case for allegedly making assault upon Project Officer and instigated others to throw coals and stones on him. Basing on such fact, they were dismissed from services vide order dated 21.09.1998. Subsequently, the petitioners were acquitted in criminal case, vide order 11.05.2000. However, the petitioners being aggrieved by the order of dismissal knocked the door of this Court by way of filing CWJC No. 1404 of 1999(R), which was disposed of vide order dated 24.01.2001with a direction the respondents-authorites to review the order of their dismissal in view of their acquittal in criminal case. Accordingly, the petitioners were reinstated in services but without back wages. Being aggrieved by the order of non-payment of back wages, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing WPS No. 3529 of 2001, which was disposed of by setting aside the order passed by respondents-CMD and the matter was remanded to pass fresh order in accordance with the observations made in CWJC No. 1404 of 1999(R). Being aggrieved, the respondents-BCCL filed L.P.A. No. 92 of 2003, which stood dismissed vide order dated 30.04.2003. Thereafter, the petitioners annexing the order passed by learned Single Judge and Division Bench, represented before respondents to pass appropriate order for payment of back wages, but, when no order was passed, the petitioner moved this Court by filing Cont. Case (C) No. 915 of 2005, wherein the petitioners for the first time, came to know that their representation has been rejected vide order dated 20.10.2003.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent no. 2 without giving any opportunity of hearing and without appreciating the direction of this Court to consider the case of the petitioners for payment of back wages, straightway rejected the representation of the petitioners solely on the ground that the petitioners were out of employment for their own fault and applying the principle of 'no work no pay', they are not entitled to get back wages. It has been submitted that it is a case where the petitioners were forced to remain out of employment by the act of respondent no. 2 and not because of their own fault. In the criminal case, the petitioners were acquitted and their innocence were proved beyond all reasonable doubt and allegations were found to be baseless by the competent Court of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that during pendency of the writ application, the petitioner retired from services, on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2010, under such circumstances, a direction may be issued to extend the retiral benefits.;