Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Pat) 440

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Vipul M. Pancholi, CJ, Partha Sarthy, J.
The Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority and ors. - Appellants
Versus
Subhash Singh S/o Late Jeonath Singh - Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No.317 of 2024 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19779 of 2015
Decided On : 11-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Advocate, Mr. Sudarshan Bharadwaj, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Shirish Anurag, Advocate, Mr. Amar Kumar Singh, Advocate

Reinstatement of an employee following wrongful termination necessitates payment of back wages unless the employer can prove alternative employment during the intervening period.

Headnote:(A) Bihar Service Code - Rule 97 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Appeal against an order requiring payment of back wages - Delay in filing appeal condoned due to sufficient cause - Petitioner reinstated but denied back wages post compulsory retirement; his appeal was dismissed yet reinstatement deemed proper - Learned Single Judge directed payment of back wages from 03.11.2007 to 10.02.2012. (Paras 4, 6, 9, 10, 11)

(B) Reinstatement - Entitlement to back wages post-reinstatement where prior disciplinary action set aside - The employee's suffering due to wrongful termination must be compensated unless the employer can prove alternative employment during that period. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Routine Clerk at Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, faced compulsory retirement following departmental proceedings over a transferred unit dispute. After appealing, he was reinstated without back wages, prompting legal action.

Findings of Court:
The cancellation of compulsory retirement was justified; the learned Single Judge's order to pay back wages is upheld as the appellants failed to adequately challenge the reinstatement and wage claims.

Issues: Whether the employee was entitled to back wages after being reinstated following wrongful dismissal; the applicability of Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that reinstatement validates a claim for back wages, unless the employer proves otherwise—back wages are crucial for compensating wrongful termination's impact.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Vipul M. Pancholi, CJ.

I.A. No.01 of 2024

This application is filed under Section-5 of the LIMITATION ACT for condonation of delay of 43 days in preferring the present appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants/appellants and learned counsel for the respondent.

3. We have considered the submissions canvassed by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the averments made in the present interlocutory application.

4. In view of the averments made in this petition and the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicants/appellants, we are of the view that the applicants/appellants have shown sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the time of limitation.

5. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed. Delay of 43 days caused in preferring the present appeal is condoned.

L.P.A. No.317 of 2024

The present appeal has been filed under Clause-X of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court Rules against the order dated 15.01.2024, rendered by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No.19779 of 2015, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the present opponent/original writ petitioner and thereby directed the present appellants to pay the arrears of salary of the petitioner with effect from 03.11.2007 to 10.02.2012 within the stipulated time.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as Routine Clerk in Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘BIADA’). Vide Memo No.923 dated 30^th April, 2007 he was transferred as Area In- charge to Industrial Area, Buxar. While functioning as Area In- charge of Industrial Area, Buxar, the petitioner received two applications addressed to the Executive Director, BIADA, Patna; one was on behalf of the unit named as Tractor Engineers. The said firm requested that since they are unable to run their unit, they may be allowed to transfer their unit with all the movable and immovable assets to one Minakshi Industries. Another letter addressed to the Executive Director, BIADA was written by one Arun Kumar Mishra, Proprietor of M/s Minakshi Industries, who also requested for transfer of unit in his name. The petitioner, being the Area In-charge of the concerned industrial area, vide communication dated 06.09.2007 forwarded the letters. Now, the dispute arose with regard to the same and, ultimately, the petitioner was suspended vide Memo No.3889, dated 21.09.2007 and thereafter departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner.

2.2. It is further the case of the petitioner that after conclusion of the departmental proceedings, the Managing Director of BIADA vide order dated 03.11.2007 ordered for a punishment of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chairman of BIADA against the said order. However, the said appeal remained pending for almost two years and, therefore, the petitioner filed CWJC No.18332 of 2009, which was disposed of on 14.01.2010 with a direction to the Chairman, BIADA to dispose of the said appeal preferred by the petitioner within the stipulated time.

2.3. Thereafter, the Chairman, BIADA dismissed the appeal vide order dated 18.01.2010. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the said order by filing another writ petition being CWJC No.10507 of 2010. The said petition was also disposed of by this Court on 08.07.2010. The learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 18.01.2010 remitting the matter back to the Chairman, BIADA with a direction to hear the appeal afresh within the stipulated time.

2.4. Thereafter, the Chairman, BIADA vide order dated 03.02.2012 held the order of compulsory retirement as disproportionate. Hence, the order dated 03.11.2007, passed by the Managing Director, BIADA was set aside. The appellate authority also observed that BIADA may issue ‘warning’ to the petitioner that in future, if he repeats the similar mistake, h