The entitlement of an employee to claim full back wages in case of illegal action by the employer, as established by the Apex Court's decision, was a central legal principle in the judgment.

1. Petitioner was working as an Assistant under the respondent Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA). He superannuated on 31.3.2012. After his retirement, he has been compelled to approach the High Court by filing the present writ application seeking quashing of the Memo No. 4921 dated 30th July, 2012, contained in Annexure-7 series, especially at page 28 of the writ application. By virtue of this order the period 1.6.2007 to 24.1.2008 has been treated as earned leave and the period 25.1.2008 to 7.9.2010 has been treated to be extra-ordinary leave.

2. The reason for passing such an order has a background which is required to be discussed and reflected. The history is that the erstwhile Managing Director of BIADA had his own way of running the affairs of the Authority. He had his likes and dislikes as well as ways of interpreting law and passing orders in the manner which he thought served his object and purpose.

3. Petitioner happened to be on the wrong side of the erstwhile Managing Director for whatever be the reason. The allegation made against him was that he used to come late to office and leave early for which he was compulsorily retired. Long period of service rendered by the petitioner, therefore, culminated into some kind of ignominy for him. Petitioner at that point of time chose to make an appeal before the superior authorities i.e. the Chairman of the Authority, who considered the matter and may be taking into consideration the fact that many an employees came to be visited with all kinds of punishments, decided to allow the appeal reverting the matter to the Managing Director, who was changed in the meantime, to reconsider the issue. This position is reflected from the order annexed as Annexure-2.

4. Consequent thereto, the Managing Director issued an order dated 6.9.2010 contained in Annexure-4, who reinstated the petitioner back in service by annulling the order of compulsory retirement effective from 30.5.2007. Petitioner gave his joining on 8.9.2010 and an order of posting thereafter was also issued in his favour.

5. All should have been made well for him but it is not, otherwise petitioner would not have been before the High Court.

6. There is an order dated 10.9.2010 contained in Annexure-7 series, which indicates that the Managing Director after issuance of the previous order of reinstatement of the petitioner decided to also issue an office order that the period petitioner was kept out of service, would be regularized by way of adjustment from earned leave or extra-ordinary leave. Nothing was done pursuant to this order dated 10.9.2010. Petitioner did not take that order seriously because no remedial measure as such is available from the records which was invoked by him. It seems, based on the order dated 10.9.2010, on the eve of retirement of the petitioner, yet another office order was issued on 30th July, 2012 adjusting that period against earned leave and extra-ordinary leave of 238 days and 956 days respectively. Petitioner has challenged the above order by filing this writ application, which is being seriously opposed by the counsel representing BIADA.

7. The Court would like to take into consideration the submission of the counsel representing the respondent BIADA because he is insistent upon dismissal of the writ application and has tried to persuade the Court from exercising its discretion, which he terms as extra-ordinary discretion vested under Article 226 of the Constitution.

8. One of the arguments is that the petitioner should be now barred or prevented from agitating an issue or a decision passed on 10.9.2010. He did not avail of any statutory remedy of appeal and after much delay and as an after-thought he has approached the High Court after his retirement. The office order dated 30.7.2012 is a culmination or fall-out of the previous decision of the Managing Director passed on 10.9.2010.

9. Some of the arguments made at the bar on behalf of the respondents are rather att