IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present :-

The Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul

And

The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen

WPCT 231 of 2025

Bithika Choudhury and others

-Vs-

The Steel Authority of India Limited and others

For the respondent petitioners: Mr. Indranath Mitra, Adv.

Mr. Siddhartha Ruj, Adv.

For the respondents : Mr. N. C. Bhattacharjee, Adv.

Mr. L. K. Paul, Adv.

Heard on : 02.12.2025 Judgment on : 02.12.2025

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

SUJOY PAUL, A.C.J. : –

1. In this petitioner filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of

India, the basic question is whether dependants of the deceased employee who was dismissed from service with effect from 10.05.2008 are entitled to get back wages when his termination order was set aside because the departmental enquiry was held to be illegal and because of death, the matter could not be remitted back for conducting further

enquiry.

2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this matter are that husband of the petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner nos.2 and 3 was working as „Sampler‟ in Alloy Steel Plant, Durgapur. The charge-sheet dated 18.01.2008 was issued to him. Since charges were denied, an enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer found charges as proved. After receiving the petitioner‟s representation, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of dismissal from service on 10.05.2008. The delinquent employee unsuccessfully challenged the dismissal order by filing appeal and after exhausting departmental remedies, he filed a writ petition being WP 17735(W) of 2008 before this court. The said petition was transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench and was renumbered as T.A. No.3/2013.

3. In the year 2018, the delinquent employee expired and accordingly the present writ petitioners got themselves substituted as legal representatives.

4. The admitted facts are that the Tribunal heard the parties at length and by impugned order found fault in the procedural part of the departmental enquiry and accordingly set aside the final punishment order dated 10.05.2008 and appellate order dated 17.06.2008. Since the delinquent employee expired in the meantime, the Tribunal opined that remitting the matter back for further enquiry would be a futile exercise. Hence, the legal representatives were held to be entitled to the retiral benefits except salary for the period the delinquent employee remained out of employment.

5. The present petition assails only this portion of the order whereby salary/back wages for the said period was denied. Admittedly, the employer has not chosen to challenge the said order of Tribunal whereby the disciplinary proceedings were held to be vitiated and punishment and appellate orders were set aside.

Contention of the petitioners:

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in para 44 of the petition before the Tribunal, it was categorically pleaded that delinquent employee after his dismissal from service was not gainfully employed anywhere. Since he was out of employment, he was entitled to get the back wages. The respondents partly denied it but could not rebut it by relying any material to show that delinquent employee was indeed working anywhere.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his prayer for grant of back wages placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in the cases of Pradip Kumar vs. Union of India and others reported in (2012) 3 SCC 182, Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 and Anantdeep Singh vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2449

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the employer fairly submitted that as a sympathetic gesture, the department did not challenge the order of the Tribunal because during the pendency of the said case, the delinquent employee died. However, the grant of back wages is no more a general rule. It also depends