ORDER 1. Petitioner was working as an Assistant under the respondent Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA). He superannuated on 31.3.2012. After his retirement, he has been compelled to approach the High Court by filing the present writ application seeking quashing of the Memo No. 4921 dated 30th July, 2012, contained in Annexure-7 series, especially at page 28 of the writ application. By virtue of this order the period 1.6.2007 to 24.1.2008 has been treated as earned leave and the period 25.1.2008 to 7.9.2010 has been treated to be extra-ordinary leave. 2. The reason for passing such an order has a background which is required to be discussed and reflected. The history is that the erstwhile Managing Director of BIADA had his own way of running the affairs of the Authority. He had his likes and dislikes as well as ways of interpreting law and passing orders in the manner which he thought served his object and purpose. 3. Petitioner happened to be on the wrong side of the erstwhile Managing Director for whatever be the reason. The allegation made against him was that he used to come late to office and leave early for which he was compulsorily retired. Long period of service rendered by the petitioner, therefore, culminated into some kind of ignominy for him. Petitioner at that point of time chose to make an appeal before the superior authorities i.e. the Chairman of the Authority, who considered the matter and may be taking into consideration the fact that many an employees came to be visited with all kinds of punishments, decided to allow the appeal reverting the matter to the Managing Director, who was changed in the meantime, to reconsider the issue. This position is reflected from the order annexed as Annexure-2. 4. Consequent thereto, the Managing Director issued an order dated 6.9.2010 contained in Annexure-4, who reinstated the petitioner back in service by annulling the order of compulsory retirement effective from 30.5.2007. Petitioner gave his joining on 8.9.2010 and an order of posting thereafter was also issued in his favour. 5. All should have been made well for him but it is not, otherwise petitioner would not have been before the High Court. 6. Petitioner gave his joining on 8.9.2010 and an order of posting thereafter was also issued in his favour. 5. All should have been made well for him but it is not, otherwise petitioner would not have been before the High Court. 6. There is an order dated 10.9.2010 contained in Annexure-7 series, which indicates that the Managing Director after issuance of the previous order of reinstatement of the petitioner decided to also issue an office order that the period petitioner was kept out of service, would be regularized by way of adjustment from earned leave or extra-ordinary leave. Nothing was done pursuant to this order dated 10.9.2010. Petitioner did not take that order seriously because no remedial measure as such is available from the records which was invoked by him. It seems, based on the order dated 10.9.2010, on the eve of retirement of the petitioner, yet another office order was issued on 30th July, 2012 adjusting that period against earned leave and extra-ordinary leave of 238 days and 956 days respectively. Petitioner has challenged the above order by filing this writ application, which is being seriously opposed by the counsel representing BIADA. 7. The Court would like to take into consideration the submission of the counsel representing the respondent BIADA because he is insistent upon dismissal of the writ application and has tried to persuade the Court from exercising its discretion, which he terms as extra-ordinary discretion vested under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. One of the arguments is that the petitioner should be now barred or prevented from agitating an issue or a decision passed on 10.9.2010. He did not avail of any statutory remedy of appeal and after much delay and as an after-thought he has approached the High Court after his retirement. The office order dated 30.7.2012 is a culmination or fall-out of the previous decision of the Managing Director passed on 10.9.2010. 9. Some of the arguments made at the bar on behalf of the respondents are rather attractive, if not persuasive but whether this Court can throw out the writ application of the petitioner in the given facts is something which the Court is not convinced about. There are reasons for it. 10. The Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that the manner in which power was being exercised by the erstwhile Managing Director, who had no respect for rule of law. There are reasons for it. 10. The Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that the manner in which power was being exercised by the erstwhile Managing Director, who had no respect for rule of law. There are many judicial orders passed by this Court on various decisions taken by him in various capacity, which will bare the above position. A permanent employee cannot be treated like a chattel or a dispensable commodity and this is what had been done in the case of the petitioner while passing order of compulsory retirement. An unconditional order of reinstatement was passed in favour of the petitioner subsequently when his departmental appeal was allowed and the Managing Director did undo the previous decision. 11. If the petitioner happened to be a victim of such whims and fancy and lost the substantial period of time and was prevented from performing his duty and earning his livelihood then the system or the organization which victimized the petitioner has to bear the brunt for such arbitrary kind of action. If the order of reinstatement carried a rider, there could have been an occasion for argument that it was a conditional order which the petitioner had accepted and he should not be allowed to turn around and assail the same after drawing advantage and superannuating, but it is not so. No doubt, the order dated 10.9.2010 was issued by the Managing Director but then no consequence or fall-out of the same was there for more than two years. The order dated 30.7.2012 is the order by which petitioner gets immediately affected because he loses not only salary for that period but even the benefit of earned leave which he would have been entitled to. There is reason for the petitioner to contest the matter seriously, especially when there is no provision for post retiral benefit of pension under the Organization and whatever is provided by way of other settlement to the petitioner, who was a low paid employee, may not be enough to meet the social and family obligation post retirement. The Court, therefore, does hold that there are cogent reasons to reject the opposition put up by BIADA as a preliminary issue and decide the writ application on its merit. 12. The Court, therefore, does hold that there are cogent reasons to reject the opposition put up by BIADA as a preliminary issue and decide the writ application on its merit. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly relies on a recent decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 324 for the proposition which the Hon'ble Supreme Court had enunciated and opined in para 22, which has a bearing in the present case as well. For ready reference para 22 of the said decision is reproduced herein below:- "22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer-employee relationship, the latter’s source of income gets dried up. Not only the employee concerned, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi-judicial body or court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. The denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the employee concerned and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments." (Emphasis mine) 13. This Court cannot put the matter in a better language than what has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the predicament of employee who came to be visited by such arbitrary decision. The state of affairs of the petitioner would be no different vis-a-vis what the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed in para 22 of the above decision. 14. Obviously, no purpose would now be served after superannuation of the petitioner to relegate him to the forum of appeal and that too, after the writ application has been filed. Response of the respondents on merit has come on record and the writ application remained pending for almost a year for adjudication due to delay in exchange of pleadings etc. 15. Taking cue from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court comes to a considered opinion that petitioner has made out a case for interference in the glaring facts and circumstances. 16. The orders dated 10.9.2010 and 30.7.2012, contained in Annexur-7 series, stand quashed. Writ application is allowed. 17. Petitioner would be treated to be in continuous service from the date of his reinstatement till the date of his retirement. He would be entitled to the benefit as if the curse of the erstwhile Managing Director never fell upon him or visited him.