In Mrityunjai Prasad Singh vs.The Chairman, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Patna & Ors. (2026), Justice Partha Sarthy of Patna High Court delivered a 10-page long judgement dated March 10, 2026, wherein, he concluded: "16....the Court holds that the petitioner is entitled for full back wages for the period that he remained compulsorily retired ie from October 2007 to 19.6.2009. 17. The respondents are directed to pay the difference of arrears of salary for the period from October 2007 to 19.6.2009 to the petitioner after deducting the subsistence allowance and/or any other amount already paid. The respondents shall pay the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 18. The writ application stands allowed."
Justice Sarthy drew on Supreme Court's decision in Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others; (2013) 10 SCC 324. Justice Sarthy recorded:"13. In the opinion of the Court, the proceedings were in gross violation of the statutory provisions and the principles of natural justice and thus the order of punishment was set aside by this Court. 14. In view of the facts and circumstances stated herein above, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra) would be fully applicable to the case of the petitioner."
In Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra), the Court's judgement reads:“38.5. The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimising the employee or workman, then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer's obligation to pay the same. The courts must always keep in view that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give a premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages.”
The petitioner had prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated February 18, 2013 passed by the Chairman, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Patna in Appeal No. 03/2012, whereby he disposed of the appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the order of punishment of censure upon the Petitioner without any interference in the order of punishment, while admitting that the another employee should have been proceeded against for the charges levelled against the Petitioner, and the claim of the Petitioner for payment of back wages for the period he remained compulsorily retired in between October, 2007 to 19-06-2009 was rejected. He also prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 361 dated January 20, 2012 issued by under the signature of the Secretary, BIADA whereby it communicated that the review petition preferred by the appellant against the order of punishment contained in Memo No. 4092 dated July 28, 07-2011 has been decided to be rejected. He further prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 4092 dated July 28, 2011 passed by the Managing Director, BIADA whereby the appellant was held guilty of charge No. 11 in the memo of charge and he has been awarded a punishment of censure to be entered in his A.C.R. in the period of 2007-2009. Further, it was held that the appellant will not be entitled for anything except the subsistence allowance for the period he remained under suspension. He sought a direction to the respondent authorities to pay the back wages to the Petitioner for the period he remained under compulsory retirement from October, 2007 to June 19, 2009 and for payment of entire salary for the period the Petitioner remained under suspension. He also sought necessary direction to the respondent authorities to pay the back wages to the Petitioner along with arrears of Dearness Allowance as admissible to the Petitioner.
The case was that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Development Officer (Chemical) on June 26, 1978 in the erstwhile Darbhanga Industrial Area Development Authority. With the merger of the three Industrial Area Development Authorities of Bihar in the year 2003, Bihar Industrial Area Development (BIADA) was formed and the petitioner became an employee of BIADA. The petitioner was proceeded against in a departmental proceeding and by order dated September 29, 2007, 5 out of the 13 charges levelled against him having been proved in the enquiry, an order of punishment was passed compulsorily retiring him w.e.f. September 30, 2007. The order of punishment of compulsory retirement of the petitioner was challenged by him by filing CWJC no.16950 of 2007. The case was heard along with the batch of applications and by order dated May 5, 2009 passed in CWJC no.11196 of 2007 (Ram Pravesh Singh vs. BIADA) and analogous cases, the impugned orders in each of the writ applications whether of termination or compulsory retirement were set aside and the petitioners directed to be reinstated. The writ applications was allowed, on the petitioners pressing for back wages, the Single Judge observed that if the petitioner prefers an application for back wages, the authorities were required to decide the same in accordance with the settled principles for grant of back wages, by a reasoned and speaking order after due opportunity to the petitioner within a maximum period of eight weeks.
The petitioner filed an application for grant of back wages before the respondent authorities. The joining of the petitioner was accepted and the petitioner was once again placed under suspension on June 30, 2009. In the departmental proceeding that followed, by order dated July 28, 2011, an order of punishment of censure for the period 2007-2009 was given and it was also ordered that for the period of suspension, no other amount except for the subsistence allowance would be payable, however, the period of suspension shall be counted for the purpose of calculation of gratuity and other post retiral dues. The review preferred by the petitioner was rejected by order dated January 20, 2012 and also the appeal preferred by him was dismissed by order dated February 18, 2013 not interfering with the order of punishment. The petitioner superannuated on January 31, 2012.
Notably, the first order of compulsory retirement was set aside by order dated May 5, 2009 on the ground that in the departmental proceeding neither a Presenting Officer was appointed nor any oral or documentary evidence was led on behalf of the prosecution nor was any opportunity to cross-examine given to the petitioner.
The order of punishment of compulsory retirement w.e.f. September 30, 2007 was set aside by the High Court by its order dated May 5, 2009 passed in CWJC no.16950 of 2007 and consequent thereto, the petitioner was reinstated in service. There was a logical compulsion for the respondents to pay the petitioner the back wages for the period he remained compulsorily retired i.e. from October 2007 to June 19, 2009.
No comments:
Post a Comment