An employee who is reinstated after being dismissed from service is entitled to back wages and other attendant benefits for the period of unemployment, unless there is a specific denial of such benefits by the court or the employer.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner while serving as Branch Manager at Banaganapalli and at Proddatur, a charge memo was issued to him on 21-12-1984 alleging certain misconduct against him under the bank's Conduct Regulations. The management, after holding departmental enquiry, removed the petitioner from the service as a disciplinary measure with effect from 4-1-1986. Aggrieved by the said disciplinary action, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 16692 of 1986 in this Court. The learned single Judge of this Court after appreciation of evidence on record came to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the enquiring authority and accepted by the disciplinary authority are without basis. The learned single Judge also thought that penalty of removal imposed on the petitioner delinquent was disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct alleged to have been committed by the petitioner delinquent. In that view of the matter, the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition by his order dated 7-4-1988. The operative portion of the order reads thus:

“For the foregoing reasons, I would allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order. The second respondent is directed to consider all the aspects of the matter and impose a reasonable punishment for the irregularities committed by the petitioner, insofar as releasing of loan in favour of Laxmi Reddy and five others are concerned. The findings of the enquiry officer that the petitioner acquired properties benami in the name of his nephew is without evidence and, therefore, it is set aside. Likewise, the finding in respect of Charge No. 2 also is set aside. The second respondent shall within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment pass orders reinstating the petitioner into service and also imposing upon him a reasonable punishment.”

2. The management of the bank being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge preferred writ appeal No. 864 of 1988 in this Court.

3. When the writ appeal was pending, there were certain interim orders. I do not think it necessary to refer to those interim orders in view of the fact that the said writ appeal was dismissed as having become infructuous on 26-3-1997 on the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the management.

4. There is no controversy between the parties that after the learned single Judge passed the order on 7-4-1988, the management did not hold any enquiry against the petitioner delinquent or pass any order imposing appropriate penalty, in the place of penalty of removal earlier imposed. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30-9-1996. The petitioner after dismissal of writ appeal No. 864 of 1988 on 26-3-1997 submitted a representation dated 10-12-1997 to the Chairman of the bank requesting the management to pay him the wages for the period between 22-1-1986 and 30-5-1988 with interest at 36% along with other service benefits from 22-1-1986 to 24-11-1990. To this letter, the General Manager of the bank sent a reply dated 15-12-1997 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The letter reads:

“3799/WP-154-0028-IAD

December 15, 1997.

Regd. Post Ack. Due.

Shri G.A. Sarma,

Manager (Retd.),

B-15, Syndicate Bank Officers' Quarters,

11 Dover Park,

B.C. Road,

CALCUTTA-700019.

Dear Sir,

Sub: Payment of arrears of salary for the period 22-1-1986 to 30-5-1988.

We have for reference your letter dated 10-12-1997 addressed to our Chairman and Managing Director.

In this connection, we would like to inform you that on an application filed by you on the interim order dated 31-5-1988 of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, inter alia, seeking for payment of arrears of salary for the period 22-1-1986 to 30-5-1988, the High Court has specifically directed the bank to pay you full salary including all allowances with effect from 31-5-1988.

Therefore, there are no directions of the court to pay back wages for the aforesaid period.

That apart, it is a settled legal position th