ORDER : Rajesh Shankar, J. I.A No. 3985 of 2025 The present interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 to condone the delay of 121 days in filing the instant Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order/judgment dated 20.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L) No. 6295 of 2014. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents does not oppose the said application. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons stated in the present interlocutory application, the delay of 121 days in filing the instant Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. 4. I.A. No. 3985 of 2025 is accordingly allowed. L.P.A. No. 636 of 2024 5. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 20.06.2024 passed in W.P. (L) No. 6295 of 2014 whereby the said writ petition has been dismissed rejecting the appellant’s claim to grant him full back wages w.e.f. 26.02.1975. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was appointed by the respondents way back in the year 1972, however he was dismissed from service on 26.02.1975 on account of lodging a criminal case being R.C. Case No. 04 of 1974 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The appellant was convicted in the said case vide judgment dated 28.07.1994 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ranchi, however the said court was pleased to release all the convicts on admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 with an observation that if the respondents so think, they may sympathetically consider the case of the appellant regarding his reinstatement in service along with the cases of co-convicts namely Lakshmi Prasad Tiwari and D.S. Shrivastava. Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the 4 th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi against the judgement of conviction and the said court, vide order dated 23.02.1998, remanded the matter to the trial court where on the request of the accused persons that they were satisfied with the judgment dated 28.07.1994 and they did not want to linger the matter any further, the trial court closed the case vide order dated 17.04.2001. 7. It is contended that one of the co-convicts namely, Lakshmi Prasad Tiwari whose case was on an identical footing to that of the appellant, was reinstated in service, but the appellant was not reinstated. 8. 7. It is contended that one of the co-convicts namely, Lakshmi Prasad Tiwari whose case was on an identical footing to that of the appellant, was reinstated in service, but the appellant was not reinstated. 8. It is also submitted that aggrieved with the said situation, the appellant filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. (S) No. 2819 of 2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 22.04.2004 directing the appellant to establish his identity before the concerned respondent by filing all the supporting documents. Thereafter, pursuant to the notice vide Reference No. GM/SA/RD/3353 dated 10.07.2004, the appellant appeared before the General Manager, Sijua Area, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad on 23.07.2004 and produced all the relevant documents to prove his identity and appointment as a workman in the company, however his claim was rejected by the said authority vide order dated 04.08.2004 as contained in Ref. No. PD/3813. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant thereafter filed another writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5160 of 2006 before this Court, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 13.09.2006 observing that in view of the nature of the relief sought i.e., regarding identity of the appellant, the same could not be granted to him under the writ jurisdiction. However, the appellant was given liberty to approach the appropriate authority or to take any prescribed legal step for proving his identity to the satisfaction of the respondents. 10. It is also submitted that subsequently an industrial dispute was raised by the Rashtriya Mazdoor Union for reinstatement of the appellant and thereafter the said dispute was referred for adjudication before the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad vide notification dated 29.09.2009 with following schedule: “(i) Whether the demand of the Rashtriya Mazdoor Union for reinstatement of Shri O.P. Sharma (the appellant herein), Weigh Bridge Clerk in service by the management of Sijua Area of M/S BCCL is justified & legal? (ii) To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?” 11. The matter was registered as Reference Case No. 53 of 2009 which was decided vide award dated 25.01.2014 holding that the demand of the Union for reinstatement of the appellant in service was justified and legal and the appellant was directed to be reinstated in job without any back wages. 12. The matter was registered as Reference Case No. 53 of 2009 which was decided vide award dated 25.01.2014 holding that the demand of the Union for reinstatement of the appellant in service was justified and legal and the appellant was directed to be reinstated in job without any back wages. 12. It is further submitted that the appellant then filed writ petition being W.P.(L) No. 6295 of 2014 claiming full back wages from 26.02.1975 with all consequential benefits and statutory interest at the rate of 15% per annum, however the said writ petition was dismissed vide impugned order dated 20.06.2024. 13. It is also contended that co-convict namely Lakshmi Prasad Tiwari was taken back into service, but the appellant was left out and thus he was discriminated. Though the identity of the appellant was duly proved, yet he remained out of service on account of omissions on the part of the respondents to act in accordance with law and as such, he is entitled to get full back wages. 14. It is lastly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the concerned respondents ruined the life and personal liberty of the appellant's family as his wife worked as a maid servant for livelihood and the appellant remained jobless since 26.02.1975 in the hope of job in the B.C.C.L. 15. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellant was reinstated in service on sympathetic ground and as such he was not entitled to any back wages, hence the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 20.06.2024 and the same needs no interference by this Court. 16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 17. The appellant is aggrieved with the denial of full back wages for the period he remained absent from duty on account of his dismissal from service w.e.f. 26.02.1975. 18. It transpires from the record that the appellant and other co-accused persons were dismissed from service due to lodging of criminal case being R.C. Case No. 04 of 1974 by the CBI for the offences under Section 409 and 120(B) of I.P.C. and the said criminal case culminated in conviction of all the accused persons vide judgment dated 28.07.1994, however they were released on admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The CBI court also observed that their cases with respect to reinstatement in service could be considered by the employer sympathetically. 19. The said judgment of the trial court was set aside by the appellate court and the matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh hearing after due notices to the parties. However, the accused persons filed a petition before the trial court stating that they were satisfied with the judgment dated 28.07.1994 passed by the trial court and that they did not want to linger the matter any further and thereby trial court closed the case vide order dated 17.04.2001. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that a similarly situated person namely Lakshmi Prasad Tiwary was taken back in service, however the appellant was left out and thus he was discriminated. 21. The appellant has not brought on record sufficient material to substantiate his claim either before the learned Single Judge or before this Court that his case was similarly situated to that of Lakshmi Prasad Tiwari. Moreover, on bare perusal of the order dated 22.04.2004 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2819 of 2002, it appears that a counter affidavit was filed in the said case on behalf of the respondents stating that Lakshmi Prasad Tiwari was asked to establish his identity, which he proved and only thereafter, he was reinstated in service. On the other hand, since the identity of the appellant was doubtful, he was asked to establish the same, however, he failed to do so. 22. In the case of Novartis India Limited Vs. State of W.B & Others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 124 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: - “21. There can, however, be no doubt whatsoever that there has been a shift in the approach of this Court in regard to payment of back wages. Back wages cannot be granted almost automatically upon setting aside an order of termination inter alia on the premise that the burden to show that the workman was gainfully employed during interregnum period was on the employer. This Court, in a number of decisions opined that grant of back wages is not automatic. The burden of proof that he remained unemployed would be on the workmen keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 106 of the EVIDENCE ACT , 1872. This Court, in a number of decisions opined that grant of back wages is not automatic. The burden of proof that he remained unemployed would be on the workmen keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 106 of the EVIDENCE ACT , 1872. This Court in the matter of grant of back wages has laid down certain guidelines stating that therefor several factors are required to be considered including the nature of appointment; the mode of recruitment; the length of service; and whether the appointment was in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in cases of public employment, etc. 22. It is also trite that for the purpose of grant of back wages, conduct of the workman concerned also plays a vital role. Each decision, as regards grant of back wages or the quantum thereof, would, therefore, depend on the fact of each case. Back wages are ordinarily to be granted, keeping in view the principles of grant of damages in mind. It cannot be claimed as a matter of right.” 23. In the case of Banshi Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another reported in (2007) 1 SCC 324 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down with regard to grant of back wages. Each case has to be determined on its own facts. 24. Thus, it is a trite law that grant of back wages is not automatic, rather the burden of proof is upon the concerned workman that he was not gainfully employed during interregnum period. Moreover, certain guidelines have been laid down by the apex court in the matter of grant of back wages wherein it has been stated that several factors are required to be taken into consideration before grant of back wages including the nature of appointment, the mode of recruitment, the length of service and whether the appointment in cases of public employment is in consonance with the Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The grant of back wages depends on the facts and circumstance of each case and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 25. In the case in hand, the appellant served in the respondent-BCCL only for the period from 1972 to 1974 and thereafter he was out of service due to lodging of a criminal case by the CBI. 25. In the case in hand, the appellant served in the respondent-BCCL only for the period from 1972 to 1974 and thereafter he was out of service due to lodging of a criminal case by the CBI. Though the appellant was convicted in the said criminal case, however he was released on admonition under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The appellant remained out of service not due to the fault of the respondents, rather due to pendency of the criminal case against him as well as due to the fact that after being released by the trial court, he failed to prove his identity before the respondents. Had the appellant proved his identity immediately after release from criminal case by adducing sufficient materials, he would have been reinstated in service with co-convict Lakshmi Prasad Tiwari. However, his identity was proved after full-fledged inquiry conducted by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Ref. Case No. 53 of 2009. Thus, the delay so occasioned in passing of the order of reinstatement, cannot be attributed to the respondents. 26. Moreover, it is not a case of illegal or wrongful termination of the appellant, rather he has been reinstated in service on sympathetic ground. The normal rule is that the back wages is granted if the termination of an employee is subsequently found illegal or wrongful, however in the present case, the termination of the appellant was not held unjustified by the Tribunal. In fact, the order of reinstatement was issued on the ground that the appellant subsequently proved his identity. 27. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 20.06.2024 passed in W.P.(L) No. 6295 of 2014. 28. The appeal being devoid of merit, is accordingly, dismissed.