Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1453 (CAL)

Teni Yadav v. E. C. L.

2011-11-29

MRINAL KANTI SINHA, PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. The appellant herein has preferred the instant appeal since the learned Single Judge refused to pass any order directing the respondents to pay back wages. So, only point which falls for consideration before us is whether the appellant herein is entitled to the back wages for the period he was not allowed to join the service by the respondent authorities. 2. From the records we find that the learned Single Judge by the interim order dated 23.12.2009directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to resume his duties on the basis of the corrected date of birth. 3. The respondent Eastern Coalfiels Limited challenged the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge before the Division Bench and the Division Bench of this Court refused to interfere with the aforesaid direction of the learned Single Judge. Thereafter Hon’ble Supreme Court also dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the respondent Coal Company challenging the order passed by the Division Bench. The respondent Coal Company, however, did not allow the appellant/writ petitioner to resume his duties even after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition being S.L.P. (C) 17194/2010 by the Supreme Court on 2nd August, 2010. The writ petition was ultimately decided finally by the said learned Single Judge on 8th March, 2011 in favour of the appellant/petitioner and the appellant/petitioner was thereafter allowed to resume his duties on 27th April, 2011. 4. The respondent Coal Company, therefore, cannot escape the liability to pay back wages to the appellant/petitioner at least from the date of the specific order passed by the learned Single Judge on 23.12.2009 in the writ petition being W.P. 11549 (W) of 2009 since the said order of the learned Single Judge was subsequently affirmed by the Division Bench and also not interfered with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the appellant herein is entitled to receive back wages at least from 23.12.2009 when the learned Single Judge directed the respondent authorities to allow the writ petitioner to resume his duties. 6. The learned Single Judge while refusing to pay back wages to the appellant/writ petitioner observed that the said writ petitioner did not come forward before the Writ Court with a specific plea that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere during the period in question. 7. 6. The learned Single Judge while refusing to pay back wages to the appellant/writ petitioner observed that the said writ petitioner did not come forward before the Writ Court with a specific plea that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere during the period in question. 7. The learned Single Judge should have appreciated that the respondent Coal Company never alleged that the writ petitioner was gainfully employed during the period in question. Therefore, back wages should not have been denied to the appellant herein specially when the respondent Coal Company in spite of repeated directions passed earlier by this Court did not allow the appellant/writ petitioner to resume his duties. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, we direct the respondent Coal Company to make payment of the back wages to the appellant/petitioner immediately after the specific order passed by the learned Single Judge on 23.12.2009, i.e. with effect from 24.12.2009 till the date of joining the duties on 26th April, 2011. 9. Since a considerable time has already passed, the respondent Coal Company is directed to pay aforesaid back wages to the appellant herein at an early date but positively before 16th January, 2012. 10. In the facts of the present case, there will, however, be no order as to costs. 11. Let xerox plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Advocates of the parties on the usual undertakings.