ORDER : 1. The Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Limited, a Government of India Enterprises (‘Company’ for short) and its Chairman have called in question, the order dated 21.6.2017 in O.A.No.1305/2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (‘CAT’ for short). 2. Though this petition is listed for consideration of I.A.No.2/2017 for vacating the adinterim order, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is heard for final disposal. 3. We have heard Sri M. Vasudeva Rao, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the respondent. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, by a communication dated 24.10.2008, invoking Clause 13(iii) of Discipline and Appeal Rules of the Company (‘the Rules’ for short), the respondent was removed from service. The respondent challenged his removal before this Court in writ petition No.14734/2008 which stood transferred to the CAT and renumbered as T.A.No.325/2010. The CAT upheld the removal of respondent by order dated 28.1.2013. The respondent challenged the same before this Court in Writ Petition No.8747/2013 which was decided on 5.1.2014 by the following order: “For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 28.1.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in TA No.325/2010 is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner is partly allowed. The order bearing No.CMD/2202 dated 24.10.2008 issued by the second respondent is quashed. Writ petition is allowed accordingly.” 5. The Company reinstated the respondent on 19.5.2014. Subsequently, a charge sheet was issued on 22.9.2014. After holding an enquiry, the Company removed the respondent from service with effect from 30.5.2015. The respondent challenged the said order before the CAT in O.A.No.736/2015. It was brought to our notice, during the hearing, that the CAT has heard the said matter and the judgment is reserved. 6. Even prior to filing O.A.No.736/2015, the respondent had filed the instant application, O.A.No.1305/2014 inter alia seeking direction to the appellants to treat the period from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement (i.e. 24.10.2008 to 19.5.2014 ), as, ‘on duty’ and to release monetary benefits. The CAT, by the order impugned, allowing the respondent’s application has held that he is entitled for monetary benefits. 7. Sri M. Vasudeva Rao, arguing in support of this writ petition vehemently contended that, in compliance with the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.8747/2013, the Company reinstated the respondent. The CAT, by the order impugned, allowing the respondent’s application has held that he is entitled for monetary benefits. 7. Sri M. Vasudeva Rao, arguing in support of this writ petition vehemently contended that, in compliance with the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.8747/2013, the Company reinstated the respondent. Further, availing the express leave granted by this Court in the said writ petition, the Company initiated disciplinary action against the respondent and removed him from service on 30.5.2015. The veracity of second order of removal is subject matter of adjudication in O.A.No.736/2015. The CAT has, since heard the matter and the decision is awaited, the respondent is not entitled for any relief in O.A.No.1305/2014. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairmancum M.D., Coal India Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Ananta Saha & Ors. reported in (2011) 5 SCC 142 . 8. Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel supporting the impugned order submitted that this Court, in Writ Petition No.8747/2013 has quashed the communication dated 24.10.2008 removing the respondent from service. Therefore, logically, respondent shall be entitled for all the benefits, as if he were ‘on duty’ from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement. He placed reliance on two authorities in the case of Shiv Nandan Mahto Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2013)11 SCC 626 and in Ramesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2015)14 SCC 335 in support of his contentions. 9. Incontrovertible facts of this case are, the respondent has been removed from service, after giving an opportunity of hearing, on 30.5.2015. The said order of removal is in furtherance of the decision rendered by this Court in W.P.No.8747/2013, setting aside the earlier order of removal dated 24.10.2008. The Company has availed of the leave granted by this Court to take disciplinary action in terms of Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules. The decision of the CAT with regard to legality and correctness of the second removal order dated 30.5.2015 is awaited. 10. The authority cited by Shri. M. Vasudeva Rao, in the case of Coal India Limited supra, it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that an employee would not be automatically entitled for back wages. 11. The decision of the CAT with regard to legality and correctness of the second removal order dated 30.5.2015 is awaited. 10. The authority cited by Shri. M. Vasudeva Rao, in the case of Coal India Limited supra, it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that an employee would not be automatically entitled for back wages. 11. In the case of Ramesh Kumar supra, relied upon by Sri P.A. Kulkarni, back wages were granted after recording a finding that, the employer therein namely, the Defence Authority, had proceeded on the footing that the punishment imposed for the second time would not affect the promotion of the employee therein. In the case of Shiv Nandan Mahto supra, it was held that the employee therein was illegally kept out of service. Thus, the back wages were awarded based on the facts of those cases. In contrast, in the instant case, the petitioners employer has availed the leave granted by this Court in the writ petition, and passed the second order of removal after following the procedure. Further, the second order of dismissal is the subject matter of adjudication before the CAT. Pending such adjudication, in our considered view, the CAT could not have awarded the back wages for the period between his removal pursuant to first order of removal and reinstatement. We say so because, this Court, while deciding the writ petition, has not awarded any back wages. Therefore, the relief granted by the CAT in the order impugned in this writ petition would be in excess of the relief granted by this Court in W.P.No.8747/2013. Hence, the impugned order is unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. 12. Resultantly, this writ petition must succeed and is accordingly allowed. The order dated 21.6.2017(Annexure-C) in O.A.No.1305/2014 passed by the CAT is set aside. 13. In view of disposal of the writ petition, I.A.No.2/2017 for vacating ad interim stay does not survive for consideration and its stands disposed of accordingly.