Entitlement to back wages must be upheld when reinstatement is ordered, regardless of the employee's retirement status, due to failure of the employer to comply with court orders.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 09.07.2015 (Annexure-P), issued by the second respondent, whereby back wages of the petitioner from the date of dismissal, i.e., 11.07.2007 till the date of superannuation, i.e., on 31.07.2014 has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent – Company as an Assistant Typist in Mysure Division. Thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Manager. When he was working as Assistant Manager, the respondent has initiated a departmental enquiry and by order dated 11.07.2007 removed the petitioner from the service. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.12447/2008. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 14.09.2009 allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and directed the respondents to continue the services of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondents have filed an appeal before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.3823-3824/2009, which came to be dismissed on 11.04.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review petition before the Division Bench in R.P.Nos.386/2014 and 539/2014. The review petitions also came to be dismissed. In the meanwhile, the respondents approached the Apex Court by filing SLP Nos.17903-904/2014. The same came to be dismissed on 17.11.2014. In the meantime, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2014. Thereafter, his retirement benefits have been settled, excluding the back wages during the period from 11.07.2007 till 31.07.2014. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation on 20.03.2015. On the representation submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order dated 09.07.2015 vide Annexure-P has been issued. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the following contentions:

(i) Firstly, the petitioner has been removed from service by order dated 11.07.2007. Petitioner has challenged that order before this Court in WP No. 12447/2008. This Court, by order dated 14.09.2009 allowed the said writ petition. The impugned order of removal of the petitioner from service and the appellate authority’s order have been quashed and the second respondent was directed to continue the petitioner in the service. The order passed by this Court in WP No.12447/2008 was not complied. Hence, the petitioner has filed a contempt petition in CCC No.1093/2014. The second respondent filed an affidavit that they will comply with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. On that ground, the contempt has been dropped. Thereafter, since they have not complied with that order, the petitioner filed one more contempt petition in CCC No. 3/2015. In the said contempt petition, the contempt Court disposed of the matter holding that notwithstanding the fact that he has reached the age of superannuation, he shall be treated as having been continued in the service till that time and he is entitled to all the monetary benefits. Even thereafter, the order passed by the learned Single Judge has been confirmed by the Apex Court. The respondents, without granting the back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of superannuation and contrary to the directions issued by this Court, issued the impugned endorsement.

(ii) Secondly, in similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1141/2012 disposed of on 30.10.2019 directed the respondent - Man