An employee who successfully contests compulsory retirement is entitled to full benefits, including service time lost during the retirement, highlighting the judicial emphasis on proportionality in disciplinary actions.

ORDER :

Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ:

1. By this common order, both these writ appeals are being disposed of as one has been filed by the appellant/Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’) and the another by the employee (writ petitioner) against the same impugned order allowing in part by the learned Single Judge.

2. Writ Appeal No.445/2024 has been filed by the Bank being aggrieved by the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3428/2021 whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner Narmada Prasad Choudhary was partly allowed with the following directions:-

“18. Accordingly this petition is allowed in part directing the respondent Bank to count the total service of the petitioner counting the period of 7 years 8 months and 11 days to be in service and his total length of service shall be calculated w.e.f 08.07.1974 till 30.06.2013, as such retiral benefits and other pensionary benefits be calculated accordingly and other benefit for which the petitioner is entitled, be also granted to him treating him to be in service during that period also. The aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and whatever arrears are drawn, the same shall also be paid to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. It is made clear that if arrears are not paid to the petitioner within the given time, the same will carry interest @ 8% per annum till the date of actual payment made to the petitioner.”

3. Writ Appeal No.720/2024 has been filed by writ petitioner Narmada Prasad Choudhary as well being aggrieved by that portion of the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in the same petition i.e. Writ Petition No.3428/2021 declining the reliefs as prayed in Para 7(ii) to (v) in the writ petition and seeks indulgence of this Court to grant the same.

4. The petitioner contends that the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition in part. The prayer of the petitioner in his appeal is that the learned Single Judge has declined the following reliefs as sought in the writ petition, which reads as under:-

ii) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay all the arrears of Fitment/appropriate pension/Gratuity/Commutation/leave encashment/refund the salary 2,05,000/- (deducted for 07 months 05 days) between the period 07/01/2002 to 30/06/2013 with all the consequential & promotional benefits alongwith 20% interest p.a. from 07/01/2002 till actual payment.

iii) Any other relief/ orders/ direction/ directions which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may also be passed in the interest of justice.

iv) Heavy cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.

v) To quash the respondent’s Appellate order dated 10/10/2009 (Annexure P/12) & Review order dated 21/06/2010 (Annexure P/13) and respondents be also directed to pay arrears of salary/Fitment & revised monthly pension after re-calculation of appropriate Basic Pay from 07/01/2002 to 30/06/2013 and arrears of pension on revised basic pay from 01/07/2013 till date of actual payment alongwith an interest @ 20% p.a. from 07/01/2002 in the interest of justice.”

5. The crux of the case is that the petitioner was