Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
N.Antony – Appellant
Versus
Chennai Port Trust Rep.by its Chairman – Respondent
Writ Petition No.15695 of 2018
Decided on : 26-07-2022
Writ Petition - Back Wages - Chennai Port Trust (Pay and Allowances etc.,) Regulations, 2001 - Rules 41, 42, 43 - The court discussed the relevant rules and regulations, the discretion of the competent authority, and the denial of back wages to the petitioner. The court set aside the impugned condition and directed the payment of proportionate pay and allowances for the non-working period from 27.04.2004 to 25.03.2015 at 30% of the back wages, and full back wages for the period from 25.03.2015 to 23.03.2016.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was dismissed from service following a conviction, which was later reversed. The petitioner sought reinstatement and back wages for the non-working period.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned condition declaring the non-working period as dies non and denying back wages was not in line with the relevant rules. The court directed the payment of proportionate pay and allowances for the non-working period and full back wages for the delay in reinstatement.
Issues: The issues included the denial of back wages for the non-working period and the discretion of the competent authority in determining pay and allowances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned condition denying back wages was not in line with the relevant rules and directed the payment of proportionate pay and allowances for the non-working period and full back wages for the delay in reinstatement.
Final Decision: The impugned condition was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to receive proportionate pay and allowances for the non-working period and full back wages for the delay in reinstatement.
ORDER :
Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for the concerned records from the 1st and 2nd respondent and quash the order of the 1st respondent dated 23.03.2016 bearing CME/A1/5506/95/MEE insofar as treating the period from 27.04.2004 till the reinstatement of the petitioner viz., 23.03.2016 as “Dies Non” and declining promotional benefits and the order of the 2nd respondent dated 22.05.2018 bearing No.CME/A1/5506/95/MEE as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to pay the back wages from 27.04.2004 onwards till 23.03.2016 being the date when the order of reinstatement was issued with continuity of service, attendant benefits and by granting due promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical), Executive Engineer (Mechanical) and Superintending Engineer (Mechanical) from the date when the junior of the petitioner was granted promotion with all monetary benefits.
The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for the concerned records from the 1st and 2nd respondent and quash the order of the 1st respondent dated 23.03.2016 bearing CME/A1/5506/95/MEE insofar as treating the period from 27.04.2004 till the reinstatement of the petitioner viz., 23.03.2016 as “Dies Non” and declining promotional benefits and the order of the 2nd respondent dated 22.05.2018 bearing No.CME/A1/5506/95/MEE as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to pay the back wages from 27.04.2004 onwards till 23.03.2016 being the date when the order of reinstatement was issued with continuity of service, attendant benefits and by granting due promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical), Executive Engineer (Mechanical) and Superintending Engineer (Mechanical) from the date when the junior of the petitioner was granted promotion with all monetary benefits.
2. The petitioner joined in the service of the respondent Port Trust as Assistant Engineer on 25.11.1986. In the year 1995, the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order of the Port Trust dated 12.12.1995 followed by a charge memo dated 17.10.1996 issued against the petitioner. The charges relate to the period of the year 1995. Two charges were framed against the petitioner, pursuant to which departmental enquiry was conducted. Simultaneously that was reported before the police for prosecuting the case against the petitioner and on the criminal side prosecution had taken place, where charge sheet was filed against the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the departmental proceedings concluded, where the charges framed against the petitioner were proved following which the disciplinary authority inflicted penalty against the petitioner by order dated 22.03.1998 under which the penalty of cutting increment for three years was imposed against the petitioner. That punishment also was undergone by the petitioner.
3. Subsequently, after trial the criminal case was completed, where the petitioner was convicted by the judgment of the criminal Court dated 04.02.2004. In view of the said conviction, the petitioner's services was terminated ie., he was dismissed from service with effect from 27.04.2004.
4. As against the said conviction against the petitioner, he preferred an appeal before this Court, where this Court has allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner by order dated 25.03.2015, under which the petitioner was given clear acquittal based on merits.
5. Pursuant to the allowing of the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner, whereby the Trial Court judgment of conviction was set aside and the petitioner was acquitted, he had requested the respondent Port Trust to reinstate him, which was accepted. However, only on 22.03.2016 the reinstatement order was passed by the respondents and pursuant to which, he joined the duty and had been working.
6. However, the
The competent authority's discretion in determining pay and allowances for reinstated employees and the denial of back wages must be in line with the relevant rules and regulations.
The bank cannot be held liable to pay salary and allowances for the period when the employee did not discharge his duties due to his own involvement in misconduct. The discretion of the Disciplinary ....
The denial of back wages based on 'Dies-non' for a period of dismissal was ruled arbitrary, necessitating payment of 50% back wages under Rule 19(ii).
The petitioner was entitled to backwages for the non-working period, except for the period when he pursued a law degree and practiced law. The Court directed the respondents to calculate the backwage....
An acquitted employee in a criminal case is entitled to back wages for the period of enforced absence from service when the dismissal was set aside due to unfair trial in departmental proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
