JUDGMENT : Dr. D.P. Choudhury, J. Challenge has been made to the inaction of the opposite parties for not releasing the salary component as admissible to the petitioner with effect from January 2013. FACTS 2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially engaged by the opposite parties with effect from 6.6.1991 and he rendered his service continuously till 24.8.1999 without any break. So, his name is placed at Sl.No.165 in the final seniority list of Daily Wagers of the University which was published in the year 1996. After 24.8.1999 the petitioner went on medical leave but after being cured when he reported, he was found to have been disengaged. So, he filed Industrial Dispute Case No.28 of 2003 but the Labour Court did not award justice by observing that termination/disengagement of the service of the petitioner was valid. Against that order the petitioner preferred a writ application bearing W.P.(C) No.12718 of 2008 before this Court and this Court in its final order directed for reinstatement of the petitioner in the capacity of Daily Wager and further directed to pay his salary equal to the amount as is being paid to his counterparts. Further this Court awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/-as there was illegal retrenchment of the petitioner. After the judgment of this Court passed on 10.1.2013 the opposite parties did not obey the order for which the petitioner had to make representation to carry out the order of this Court. 3. It is the further case that on 30.8.2013 the opposite parties re-engaged the petitioner with effect from 10.1.2013 as Daily Wager and placed him in the Security Cell of the University. It is alleged, inter alia, that the petitioner has neither been paid the compensation of Rs.15,000/-nor paid his arrear and current salary. It will not be out of place to mention that when the order was not complied the petitioner has filed a Contempt case before this Court and the same is still pending. However, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for a direction to the opposite parties to release the arrear and current salary with effect from 10.1.2013 till date with immediate effect. 4. Per contra, counter has been filed by the opposite parties. It is the case of the opposite parties that the petitioner has not worked continuously from 6.6.1991 to 24.8.1999. 4. Per contra, counter has been filed by the opposite parties. It is the case of the opposite parties that the petitioner has not worked continuously from 6.6.1991 to 24.8.1999. In pursuance of the order of this Court the opposite parties have already paid the compensation of Rs.15,000/-on 12.9.2013. 5. It is the further case of the opposite parties that the petitioner is not eligible for regularization of his service because he has no continuous service and a habitual absentee. It is also stated that for non-submission of bill with signature of the petitioner and verification report duly forwarded by the Controlling Officer, the payment was not made. So, it is submitted to reject the writ petition. SUBMISSIONS 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is clear order in the earlier writ petition that the retrenchment of the petitioner was illegal and the opposite parties have been directed to reinstate him and the petitioner has not made any prayer to regularize his service but for payment of the salary with equal amount as has been paid to his counterpart after being reinstated. On the other hand, the plea of the opposite parties that the petitioner has not continuous service earlier to 1999 is not a point to be considered now because the petitioner has claimed the salary from 10.1.2013 when this Court passed the order of reinstatement. 7. The submission of the petitioner has not been understood well by the opposite parties and it is the petitioner who has claimed arrear salary from 10.1.2013 and not for any payment prior to that period. He further submitted that Rs.15,000/-has been paid at a much belated stage. Since he is working continuously from the date of re-engagement, i.e., 10.1.2013 till date, for this period, the petitioner does claim for payment of Daily Wager charge. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite party-University submitted that the petitioner being a Daily Wager and having no any continuous service is not entitled to be regularized. He further submitted that the petitioner has not submitted the bill with signature for verification by the Controlling Officer for which payment has not been made. He further submitted that vide Annexure-B, the Controlling Officer has submitted that since 1991 till November 1999 the petitioner although has worked but not continuously. He further submitted that the petitioner has not submitted the bill with signature for verification by the Controlling Officer for which payment has not been made. He further submitted that vide Annexure-B, the Controlling Officer has submitted that since 1991 till November 1999 the petitioner although has worked but not continuously. He further submitted that verification report of the Daily Wager and forward of the same by the Controlling Officer to the University is mandatory in nature for payment of daily wages and in absence of the same, no payment has been made. 9. Point for consideration:- (i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the salary component with effect from January 2013 till date ? DISCUSSION 10. It is admitted fact that the petitioner was Daily Wager duly appointed by the opposite party-University in the Security Cell. It is not in dispute that the petitioner due to retrenchment has knocked the door of the Court and this Court passed the order for reinstatement of the petitioner and be paid equal amount as being paid to his counterpart. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner in pursuance of the order of this Court has received Rs.15,000/-as back wages. 11. The case of the petitioner as available from the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was initially engaged as Daily Wager in 1991 and continued till 24.8.1999. Whereas the opposite parties claim that the petitioner was not in continuous service as per Annexure-B. Since writ petition pertains to 2014 and the wages component is being claimed from 2013 till date, the submission of the opposite parties about irregularity of the attendance by the petitioner prior to 1999 is otiose. 12. It is profitable to quote the last para of the judgment passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition No.12718 of 2008: “9. In view of the above, this Court finds that the learned Labour Court was not correct in refusing the claim of the petitioner-workman and answering the reference by stating that there is no illegality in terminating the petitioner. Hence, the said award passed by the learned Labour Court, which ex facie shows errors apparent on the face of it, stands quashed and the management-University is directed to reinstate the petitioner in the capacity in which he was earlier working. Hence, the said award passed by the learned Labour Court, which ex facie shows errors apparent on the face of it, stands quashed and the management-University is directed to reinstate the petitioner in the capacity in which he was earlier working. Since the management has prepared a seniority list, the seniority of the petitioner should be maintained in accordance with the said list. With regard to back wages, this Court finds that as the petitioner has not worked, he will not be entitled to the back wages, but due to illegal retrenchment of the petitioner, the University-management is directed to pay the petitioner a lump sum compensation of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand). The petitioner on being reinstated shall be paid an equal amount as is being paid to his counterparts.” From the above findings of this Court, it is clear that the petitioner’s seniority should be maintained after being reinstated and after reinstatement he should be paid equal amount as has been paid to his counterpart. Of course, this judgment was passed on 10.1.2013. In the writ petition petitioner alleged that from 10.1.2013 he has not been paid the current salary components. In the counter it is admitted that the petitioner was reengaged without mentioning the date from which date he was reengaged. On the other hand, the petitioner himself claims in the writ petition that he was reengaged with effect from 10.1.2013 vide Annexure-3/A which shows also that on 30.8.2013 the petitioner was allowed to be reengaged with effect from 10.1.2013. Again the petitioner filed another Gradation List dated 12.4.2013 issued by the opposite party-University where the name of the petitioner finds place at Sl. No.95. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on perusal of the said document there is a remark column where petitioner has been shown as discontinued. According to him when Annexure-3/A shows that the petitioner was reengaged as such with effect from 10.1.2013 vide letter dated 30.8.2013, the question of issuance of Annexure-3 showing the word ‘Discontinued’ against Sl. No.95 of the petitioner is not in consonance with law. It will not be out of place to mention that Annexure-3/A is prepared later on but gives effect with effect from 10.1.2013. So, the word ‘Discontinued’ at Sl. No.95 against his entry is not acceptable. 13. Thus, the Court is of the view that the Gradation List published showing discontinued against his entry should be deleted. It will not be out of place to mention that Annexure-3/A is prepared later on but gives effect with effect from 10.1.2013. So, the word ‘Discontinued’ at Sl. No.95 against his entry is not acceptable. 13. Thus, the Court is of the view that the Gradation List published showing discontinued against his entry should be deleted. Apart from this, in view of the order of this Court when the petitioner is reengaged with effect from 10.1.2013 as per Annexure-3/A which is not challenged by the opposite parties in the counter, the petitioner is entitled to salary component with effect from 10.1.2013. The point No.(i) is answered accordingly. CONCLUSION 14. In the writ petition prayer has been made to direct for payment of salary component with effect from 10.1.2013. There is no bar for payment of the salary component with effect from 10.1.2013 but plea has been taken by the opposite parties that due to absence of submission of bill duly countersigned, verified and forwarded by the Controlling Officer, the payment has not been made. When it is observed in the aforesaid para that the petitioner is entitled to salary component with effect from 10.1.2013 and the verification of the Muster Roll and forwarding the same which are Ministerial Act directly under the control of the opposite parties, the later plea is unsustainable in law. Whenever a Daily Wager works, it is for the employer to prepare the Certificate and make payment to the employee. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the opposite parties-University to pay the salary component as available to the counterparts of the petitioner with effect from 10.1.2013 after calculating the same within a period of two months from today.