ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

1. These two Writ Appeals have been filed against the same judgment dated 18.1.2010 passed in W.P(C). No.11224 of 2005. The parties shall be referred to as described in the Writ Petition. By the judgment dated 18.1.2010 the learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition by issuing directions in paragraph 6 of the judgment, which shall be hereinafter noted in detail. The brief facts giving rise to the Writ Petition are:

At the relevant time the petitioner was working as Assistant Grade-II (Depot) at the Kochuveli Goodshed, Thiruvananthapuram. He was in-charge of the F.C.I. unloading operations at the Railway Station, Kochuveli. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum dated 19.9.1984 containing five articles of charges. The disciplinary authority, after conducting enquiry, passed an order dated 14.1.1986 awarding penalty of dismissal from service. Challenging the dismissal order, the petitioner filed O.P.No.5178 of 1988. The learned Single Judge by judgment dated 8.8.1991 dismissed the Writ Petition on merits. A Writ Appeal was filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the learned Single Judge being W.A.No.1212 of 1991. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Writ Appeal giving liberty to the appellant to make appropriate representation before the concerned authority for reconsideration on the question of punishment. On the basis of the Division Bench judgment dated 27.9.1999, the petitioner filed an application before the Managing Director. The Board of Directors by its resolution dated 16.3.2000, treating the application as a review petition, rejected the prayer observing that there was no material circumstance for a lesser punishment. The order of the Board of Directors dated 16.3.2000 was again challenged by the petitioner by filing O.P.No.32152 of 2001. The said Original Petition was disposed of by judgment dated 24.9.2004 setting aside the order of the Board of Directors and directing for reconsideration after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. After the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24.9.2004, in the 296th meeting of the Board of Directors, the petitioner was heard and by resolution dated 23.12.2004 it was resolved that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board did not find any substantial material for a lesser punishment and found that the punishment of dismissal imposed on the petitioner was commensurate with the proven guilt. Aggrieved by the decision of the Board of Directors, the petitioner again filed W.P(C).No.11224 of 2005. The learned Single Judge by judgment dated 18.1.2010 quashed Exhibit P4, which was a communication of decision of the Board of Directors to the petitioner. The learned Single Judge having noted that the petitioner had been superannuated on 27.3.2006, directed that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been imposed with the same punishment as was given to the watchmen involved in the same disciplinary proceedings and the petitioner would be entitled to the retirement benefits. The learned Single Judge further directed that no back wages need be paid to the petitioner. It is useful to quote paragraph 6 of the judgment, which reads as under:

“6. It is submitted before me that the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on 27.3.2006. In the above circumstances, the petitioner shall be deemed to have been imposed with the same punishment as given to the watchmen involved in the same disciplinary proceedings as co-delinquents and continued in service till the date of superannuation. He would be entitled to retirement benefits accordingly. However, I direct that no back wages need be paid to the petitioner.”

2. The Food Corporation of India, aggrieved by the above judgment, has come up in W.A.No.575 of 2010. The writ petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge in so far as back wages were denied, has filed W.A.No.1165 of 2010.

3. We have h