JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing the letter dated 23.06.2007, issued by the Respondent No. 5, whereby the back wages for the period from 01.07.2006 to 23.05.2007 has been denied and the petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents for release of the salary and other admissible benefits for the aforesaid period during which the petitioner was illegally superannuated and prevented from discharging the duties. 2. The facts in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Mechanical Fitter in the year 1971 in Bilboro Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. At the time of entry into service, the date of birth declared by the petitioner was 16.07.1949, which has been duly recorded in the service record, such as, Identity Card, B Form Register, which are statutory service records of the employee in the collieries of B.C.C.L. It has been averred in the writ application that the date of birth of the petitioner, was altered from 16.07.1949 to 01.07.1946. Being aggrieved by the unilateral alteration of the date of birth, the petitioner knocked the door of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 6261 of 2005, praying, inter alia, for direction to the respondents not to superannuate the petitioner from services except on the basis of the date of birth as recorded in the service excerpts and the said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 04.05.2006 with direction upon the respondents to treat the petitioner's date of birth as 16th July, 1949 and allow the petitioner to continue in service till the date of attaining the age of superannuation as per Annexure-1 to the writ petition but the petitioner was prematurely superannuated with effect from 01.07.2006. Due to non-compliance of the order, a Contempt Case (C) No. 359 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner for initiation of the contempt proceedings against the respondents. The Respondents filed L.P.A. No. 346 of 2006, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2006. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the Appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench, the respondents preferred S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Apex Court vide S.L.P. No. 5671 of 2007, which was also dismissed vide Annexure-3 to the writ application. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.05.2007, passed by the respondent no. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the Appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench, the respondents preferred S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Apex Court vide S.L.P. No. 5671 of 2007, which was also dismissed vide Annexure-3 to the writ application. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.05.2007, passed by the respondent no. 4, the petitioner was directed to be re-instated with immediate effect, basing on the date of birth, as 16.07.1949 as per Annexure-4 to the writ petition and the petitioner submitted his joining and joined on the said post on 24.05.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his representation for payment of back wages from 01.07.2006 to 23.05.2007 during which the petitioner was forced to sit idle and the respondent no. 4 vide order dated 23.06.2007 vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition, has passed the order in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for back wages, which is impugned in this writ petition. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 23.06.2007 vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition, the petitioner left with no other efficacious, speedy and alternative remedy, has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the action of the respondents in denying the claims of back wages by passing of the impugned order vide Annexure-6 smacks of arbitrary and high-handed action being not in consonance with the order, passed on 04.05.2006 in W.P. (S) No. 6261 of 2005. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the back wages from 01.07.2006 to 23.05.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that because of the adamantine attitude of the respondents, the petitioner has been forced to sit idle for the aforesaid period and during the said interregnum period, the petitioner has been subjected to serious financial stringencies. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the back wages from 01.07.2006 to 23.05.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that because of the adamantine attitude of the respondents, the petitioner has been forced to sit idle for the aforesaid period and during the said interregnum period, the petitioner has been subjected to serious financial stringencies. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decisions reported in 2015 (4) JCR 215 : L.P.A. No. 425 of 2015, Sudhir Kumar Mandal v. Steel Authority of India Limited and others as well as in Nirmal Kumar Singh v. The Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors., passed in 2015 (2) JCR 292 : L.P.A. No. 67 of 2015 and submits that the action of the respondents being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is entitled to the back wages. 4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 6, stating therein, that the petitioner is not entitled to get the wages for the period from 01.07.2006 to 23.05.2007 on the ground that the petitioner has not worked. It has further been stated that it is a settled position of law that the back wages is not a matter of right as the same is not automatic after reinstatement and it has further been stated that the person, who is claiming back wages should prove that he was not employed during the period in question. It has further been submitted that the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable since the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has not directed for payment of any back wages. 5. A rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents has been filed by the petitioner, stating, therein, that the petitioner has a rightful claim for the back wages and the same cannot be denied because the respondents themselves did not allow the petitioner to continue in service. 6. 5. A rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents has been filed by the petitioner, stating, therein, that the petitioner has a rightful claim for the back wages and the same cannot be denied because the respondents themselves did not allow the petitioner to continue in service. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, the impugned order, passed by the respondents vide Annexure-6 is assailable on the following grounds :- (i) Now adverting to the question of payment of salary to the petitioner from 01.07.2006 to 23.05.2007, the period during which the petitioner could have discharged the duties, had he been allowed to remain in service, it would be apposite to examine the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., reported in (1979) 2 SCC 80 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that "If the Workmen were always ready to work but they were kept away therefrom on account of an invalid act of the employer, there is no justification for not awarding them full back wages, which was very legitimately due to them." However, the Court further held that in the very nature of things there can not be a straight jacket formula for awarding relief of back wages" and held the workmen entitled to 75 per cent of the back wages." (ii) In Surendra Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, New Delhi & Anr. reported in (1980) 4 SCC 443 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed "plain common sense dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen". (iii) In General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh reported in (2005) 5 SCC 591 , the three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the question, whether back wages should be awarded to the workman in each and every case of illegal retrenchment, held as under : - "8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors like the manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment, namely, whether ad hoc, short term daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like should be weighed and balance in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important factors, which has to be taken into consideration, is the length of service, which the workman had rendered with the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at his age and the qualification possessed by him, he may not be in a position to get another employment". (iv) In the present Case, the petitioner has claimed the date of birth, as 16.07.1949, as per the filled-up format, issued by the M/s. B.C.C.L. and the Identity Card (Annexures-1and 2). Learned Single Judge vide order dated 04.05.2006, passed in W.P. (S) No. 6261 of 2005 has been pleased to accept the date of birth as 16.07.1949 and the respondents were directed to treat the same as date of birth of the petitioner and allow him to continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation. Had the said order been implemented immediately, the petitioner would have joined the said post and continue to discharge his duties, but the respondents challenged the said order up to the Hon'ble Apex Court, which was dismissed on 05.04.2007, just few months prior to the petitioner attaining the age of superannuation and therefore, the petitioner has been wrongfully and illegally stopped from discharging his duties, as a result, the petitioner is entitled to full salary for the period from 01.07.2006 to 23.05.2007. 7. As a sequel to the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order dated 23.06.2007, passed by the respondent no. 5 vide Annexure-6 to the writ application is quashed and set aside and the petitioner is entitled to full salary for the period from 01.07.2006 to 23.05.2007. 7. As a sequel to the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order dated 23.06.2007, passed by the respondent no. 5 vide Annexure-6 to the writ application is quashed and set aside and the petitioner is entitled to full salary for the period from 01.07.2006 to 23.05.2007. Resultantly, the concerned authorities of M/s. B.C.C.L. is directed to release the said amount in favour of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands allowed.