Court judgments must be interpreted in context, and entitlements like back wages are not automatic upon reinstatement unless explicitly directed, reflecting the discretionary nature of such benefits.

JUDGMENT :

SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner who is presently serving as LDA-cum-Typist at Barbaruah ICDS Project till date. The petitioner was initially appointed on 17.05.1996 as Grade-III staff on ad-hoc basis in the Office of the Divisional Programme Officer, ICDS Cell, Sonitpur at Tezpur in fixed pay of Rs. 900/- per month. In the year 2000- 01, the petitioner was called for appearing in the Oral Interview of the LDA Post where he secured 6^th position in the merit list. After his selection, he was attached to the office of the Divisional Programme Officer, ICDS Cell at Sonitpur as LDA-cum-Typist and subsequently he was posted in the office of the CDPO at Majuli. Thereafter, he was again transferred and posted in the Office of Child Development Project Officer, Barbaruah ICDS Project, Dibrugarh.

2. Pursuant to a writ petition being W.P(C) No. 8691/2004 being filed by one Narbada Chetri who claimed to have secured 2^nd position in the merit list but was not appointed, this Court passed orders dated 14.11.2013 directing the concerned authority to cancel the appointment of the petitioner and in his place appoint the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 8691/2004 namely Smti Narbada Chetri. Since the directions was not complied, the Cont. Case No. 341/2005 was also subsequently filed.

3. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court by order dated 25.01.2007, petitioner’s appointment was cancelled vide order dated 25.01.2007 and in his place Smti Narbada Chetri was appointed. The petitioner being aggrieved, assailed the said order dated 25.01.2007 by filing W.P.(C) No. 1014/2007. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 14.11.2013 allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent authority to cancel the appointment of the said Smti Narbada Chetri and appoint the petitioner in her place. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed as LDA-cum-Typist at ICDS Project, Barbaura vide letter dated 13.03.2014.

4. The grievance raised before this Court by the petitioner is that he was discharged from service on 25.01.2007 and subsequently reinstated in service on 13.03.2014 but his service benefits and financial entitlements in the interregnum period was not granted. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thee directions contained in the order dated 14.11.2013 to appoint the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the Court will have to be understood to be a directions to re-instate the petitioner and with full service benefits and back wages. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed praying for direction to the respondents to release his salary, pay and other service benefits for the interregnum period.

5. The respondents have contested the case by filing an affidavit. The respondents state that since the petitioner was appointed by order dated 13.03.2014 and joined in his service on 23.07.2014 in Barburah ICDS Project as LDA-cum-Typist, he is entitled to draw his salary from the date of his joining which is 23.07.2014. It is stated that the Finance Department did not allow any financial benefit to the petitioner for the period of his earlier appointment as LDA-cum-Typist in Barbaruah ICDS Project, Dibrugarh which was cancelled by order dated 25.01.2007.

6. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Pleadings available on record have been carefully perused. The Judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench by Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2013 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1014/2007 has also been carefully perused.

7. The Co-ordinate Bench upon examination of the matter in its entirety came to a conclusion that the present writ petitioner was never arrayed as a party in the writ petition being W.P(C) No. 861/200