JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition is filed to quash the proceedings of the respondent dated 14.11.2014 in the memo Na Ka No.E5/7001/1997 and for consequential direction to the respondent to treat the period of non employment from 31.1.1996 to 31.1.2005 as one spent on duty, calculate the pay and allowances accordingly and pay the petitioner 50% of pay after such cancellation after adjusting the amount already paid. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: While the petitioner was working as Superintendent/Double Lock Officer under the respondent, he was removed from service by order of the respondent dated 31.1.1996 in relation to the chargememo dated 02.03.1995. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.12737 of 1997 and the same was allowed by order dated 06.01.2005, directing the respondents therein to reinstate the petitioner into service within one month, however leaving it open to the disciplinary authority to continue with the enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer and further by observing that the petitioner is entitled to the salary from the date of his reinstatement and that the question of backwages would be decided on the outcome of the fresh enquiry. Thereafter, consequential order was passed on 24.03.2005, permitting the petitioner to retire from service on 31.01.2005 on attaining the age of superannuation however by reserving the right to proceed with disciplinary proceedings. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.12035 of 2005 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 02.02.2011, directing the respondent to release the retirement benefits however, by denying the backwages, since the petitioner was already removed from service on 31.01.1996. The said order was challenged in W.A.No.2432 of 2011. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 04.03.2014, allowed the appeal in part by directing the management to pay 50% of the backwages to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with the impugned Memo dated 14.11.2014, wherein the respondent calculated the arrears on the basis of the pay drawn on the date of removal from service and thus, committed illegality. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with the impugned Memo dated 14.11.2014, wherein the respondent calculated the arrears on the basis of the pay drawn on the date of removal from service and thus, committed illegality. The respondent has to treat the entire period of non employment from 31.01.1996 to 31.01.2005 as one spent on duty and bound to calculate the arrears as if the petitioner was in employment and the petitioner should be given the entire benefit of revised pay and allowance applicable to the post of Superintendent and thereafter, be paid 50% of such calculation. 3. The respondent filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated as follows: Charges were framed against the petitioner through the charge memo dated 02.03.1995. After an enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service through the proceedings dated 31.01.1996. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation was also rejected on 26.07.1996. Challenging the punishment order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.12737 of 1997 before this Court. On 06.01.2005, this Court quashed the order of punishment with liberty to proceed the case afresh from the stage of denova enquiry. This Court has also ordered to reinstate the petitioner with further observation that payment of backwages would be depending upon the result of fresh enquiry. The order passed by this Court was received by the Corporation only on 07.02.2005 and in the meantime, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2005. As such, the petitioner was ordered to be deemed to have taken back into service of the Corporation with effect from 06.01.2005 and deemed to have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.01.2005, without prejudice to the disciplinary action pending against him. An Enquiry Officer was appointed through the proceedings dated 24.03.2005. The petitioner challenged the said proceedings in W.P.No.12035 of 2005. This Court granted interim stay of the proceedings. Under such circumstances, the present impugned order was issued. By an order dated 04.03.2014, in W.A.No.1276 and 2432 of 2011, this Court modified the order made in W.P.No.12035 of 2005 dated 02.02.2011, by directing the Management to pay 50% of the backwages to the employee. The 50% of the backwages for the period from 1996 to 2005 works out to Rs.2,73,171/- and the same was paid to the petitioner after making certain adjustment towards house building advance and interest thereon. The 50% of the backwages for the period from 1996 to 2005 works out to Rs.2,73,171/- and the same was paid to the petitioner after making certain adjustment towards house building advance and interest thereon. There is no specific mention in the Division Bench judgment to treat the entire period of non employment of the petitioner as the one spent on duty. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get full backwages. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The petitioner, while serving as the Superintendent/Double Lock Officer under the control of the respondent Corporation, was removed from service on 31.01.1996 after framing charges and conducting enquiry. The said removal was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.12737 of 1997. By an order dated 06.01.2005, the Writ Court by relying on the decision of the Division Bench made in W.A.No.2430 of 2003 dated 18.09.2003, quashed the termination order however, by granting liberty to the competent Authority to appoint an Enquiry Officer and continue with the enquiry. A positive direction was also issued to reinstate the petitioner within one month from the date of the order with further observation that the petitioner shall be entitled to the salary from the date of reinstatement and the question of backwages would be depending upon the result of the fresh enquiry. It is seen that the said order has become final and conclusive. Consequently, the Management complied with the said order and reinstated the petitioner by way of deemed action and thereafter, permitted him to retire from service. However, while permitting the petitioner to retire from service, the Department reserved its right to proceed against the petitioner with a disciplinary proceedings departmentally. The said order dated 24.03.2005 was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.12035 of 2005. The Writ Court disposed the writ petition by order dated 02.02.2011 as follows: "7. In this view of the matter, no purpose would be served by proceedings against the petitioner who had already retired from service on 31.01.2005. In view of the fact that the petitioner was already removed by the order dated 31.01.1996, which also came to be upheld by the appellate authority, this Court is not passing any order granting any backwages. Admittedly, the petitioner was permitted to retire from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.01.2005 without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings. In view of the fact that the petitioner was already removed by the order dated 31.01.1996, which also came to be upheld by the appellate authority, this Court is not passing any order granting any backwages. Admittedly, the petitioner was permitted to retire from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.01.2005 without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings. There was no rule shown by the respondents to retain the petitioner, even after he retired from service for the purpose of proceedings against him departmentally. This position is very clear, since the corporation had introduced an amendment on 06.01.2006 by introducing Rule 13(d), which gives power to the Corporation to pass order permitting the employees to retire on the date of retirement without prejudice to the departmental action against the employees. Since the said rule came into force only by amendment dated 06.01.2006, the proceedings initiated, which finally culminated in the order of removal dated 31.01.1996, is without jurisdiction. However, the petitioner from the date of his retirement is entitled to get only the service benefits, but not only any backwages as he was removed already on 31.01.1996. However, it is made clear that other retirement benefits may be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 6. The above said order was challenged both by the writ petitioner as well as the Management in W.A.Nos.1276 and 2432 of 2011 respectively. The Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 04.03.2014, dismissed the writ appeal filed by the Management and allowed the writ appeal filed by the petitioner in part, thereby modifying the order of the learned Single Judge by directing the Management to pay 50% of the backwages to the employee. The Division Bench in the above said order observed that the Writ Court was perfectly justified in finding that the Management was not correct in proceeding with the enquiry after permitting the employee to retire from service. The Division Bench also found that the petitioner is perfectly in correct in contending that having set aside the punishment as early as on 06.01.2005, the Management cannot contend that he is not entitled to backwages. The relevant findings of the Division Bench at paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 13, 14 and 15 are extracted as hereunder: "6. The Division Bench also found that the petitioner is perfectly in correct in contending that having set aside the punishment as early as on 06.01.2005, the Management cannot contend that he is not entitled to backwages. The relevant findings of the Division Bench at paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 13, 14 and 15 are extracted as hereunder: "6. The core question is as to whether the management was correct in initiating disciplinary proceedings after permitting the employee to retire from service. 7. The management placed reliance on rule 13(d) of the Service Regulations, which gives power to pass orders permitting the employee to retire on the date of retirement without prejudice to the departmental action against the employees. The said regulation came into force by way of amendment dated 6 January 2006. However, the fact remains that the petitioner was permitted to retire as early as on 31 January 2005. The factual matrix very clearly indicates that there was no rule as on 31 January 2005 giving authority to the management to permit the employee to retire without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings. The learned Single Judge was therefore perfectly justified in his finding that the management was not correct in proceeding with the enquiry, after permitting the employee to retire from service. We do not find any error or illegality in the order, warranting interference in this appeal at the instance of the management. Back wages : 8. The learned Single Judge declined to grant back wages to the employee. According to the learned Single Judge, the employee was removed from service as early as on 31 January 2005 and as such, no direction could be given to pay back wages. ..13. The learned Single Judge while setting aside the order dated 31 January 1996, observed that the question of back wages would depend upon the outcome of the fresh enquiry. It is a matter of record that fresh enquiry was set aside by the learned Single Judge. Such being the position, the employee is justified in his contention regarding payment of back wages. The employee was suspended from service and thereafter, he was removed, by order dated 31 January 2005. It is a matter of record that the employee failed to work for the entire period till he was permitted to retire from service by proceedings dated 24 March 2005. 14. The employee was suspended from service and thereafter, he was removed, by order dated 31 January 2005. It is a matter of record that the employee failed to work for the entire period till he was permitted to retire from service by proceedings dated 24 March 2005. 14. The Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase indicated that it is open to the Court to decide the quantum of back wages taking into account the particular background facts. Since the employee did not work for the entire ten years, we are of the view that interest of justice would be sub served by directing the management to pay 50% of the back wages. 15. We modify the order dated 2 February 2011 in W.P.No.12035/2005 by directing the management to pay 50% of the back wages to the employee. Such payment shall be made within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment." 7. Therefore, from the above findings rendered by the Division Bench, it is evident that the Management is not entitled to proceed against the petitioner after permitting him to retire and that they are also not justified in denying the backwages. However, it is seen that the Division Bench restricted the payment of backwages only to 50% and not in its entirety. It is not in dispute that the said order passed by the Division Bench has become final and conclusive between the parties. Thereafter, the present impugned communication was issued by arising at a sum of Rs.1,07,138/- being the 50% of the backwages. 8. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that such calculation of 50% of the backwages not only reckoned from the date of dismissal from service viz., 31.01.1996 and also by giving all other monetary benefits such as increment etc., by treating the period as on duty. I find that the above claim of the petitioner is justifiable in view of the categorical findings rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the above said writ appeals, wherein it was observed specifically that the Management cannot contend that the petitioner is not entitled to backwages. I find that the above claim of the petitioner is justifiable in view of the categorical findings rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the above said writ appeals, wherein it was observed specifically that the Management cannot contend that the petitioner is not entitled to backwages. The Division Bench, while making such observation, has taken into consideration of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in 2013(10) SCC 324 , Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, holding that in cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages is the normal rule. Therefore, the Division Bench found that the petitioner is entitled to backwages but however owing to the fact that he did not work for entire ten years, restricted the backwages only to 50% of the same and hence, directed the Management to pay such backwages. Therefore, I find that the action of the respondent in calculating the backwages only by taking note of the pay as existed on the date of removal, cannot be sustained and on the other hand, as rightly claimed by the petitioner, the respondent is bound to pay 50% of such backwages by calculating the same from the date of his removal with all further increment, etc., by treating such period as on duty. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the respondent is directed to calculate 50% of backwages payable to the petitioner from 31.01.1996 till the date of his retirement with all other monetary benefit such as periodical increment, etc., after deducting the amount, if any paid already, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.