(Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.)

We have heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Advocate for the appellants/Dibrugarh University & Another and Dr. R. Sarmah, learned Advocate for the sole respondent.

2. A peculiar situation has arisen in this appeal, whereby, because of delayed disposal of the litigation initiated by the respondent, now the employer is required to pay the subsistence allowance along with its revisions to the respondent for twelve long years.

The respondent herein, while serving as a Lower Division Assistant (LDA) in the Finance and Accounts Branch of Dibrugrah University, faced a departmental inquiry for misconduct. He was removed from service on 31.12.2004. After multiple rounds of litigation, the penalty was modified to compulsory retirement, which was also made effective from the same date, i.e. from 31.12.2004.

3. Being aggrieved by the said punishment, the respondent filed WP(C) No.2406/2005 challenging the punishment.

4. The learned Single Judge in that instance found that the disciplinary authority had taken a decision of punishing the respondent on the basis of the inquiry report, which decision had been taken prior to giving an opportunity to the respondent to represent against the inquiry findings.

The learned Single Judge also noticed that the respondent was given an opportunity to represent against the proposed punishment, nd which was held to be unnecessary in view of the 42 Amendment to the Constitution of India. Because of the respondent not having been given the opportunity to show his cause with respect to the findings of the Inquiring Authority, the punishment was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Disciplinary Authority for taking a fresh decision on the matter after giving reasonable opportunity to the respondent to represent against the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 02.11.2016 imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on the respondent from the service of the Dibrugarh University w.e.f. 31.12.2004.

5. Aggrieved by the afore-noted decision of the Disciplinary Authority, the respondent preferred WP(C) No.1130/2017, which was disposed off on 28.07.2022, with the direction to the Dibrugarh University to pay all amounts due to the respondent within a specific period of time.

While passing the said order, the learned counsel for the respondent/University had submitted that the University be allowed to verify as to what amount is due to the respondent, whereafter such amount shall be paid to him.

6. When the back-wages were not being paid to the respondent, he preferred another writ petition vide WP(C) No.1018/2023 seeking back- wages from 01.01.2005 to 02.11.2016, i.e. for the intervening period when the impugned order of penalty dated 31.12.2004 was quashed by a Bench of this Court and the order dated 02.11.2016 was passed by the Disciplinary Authority of the Dibrugarh University.

7. The learned Single Judge, in this instance, found that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 02.11.2016 would not have its effect retrospectively and that it was prospective in nature. It was thus held by the learned Single Judge that the penalty of compulsory retirement would be operative from 02.11.2016.

8. The respondent was given an opportunity under the orders of the Court to make a representation before the competent authority/Dibrugarh University for payment of back-wages and the competent authority in turn was directed to consider and dispose off such representation of the respondent in accordance with law within a specified time line.

9. Pursuant to the afore-noted directions passed by this Court in WP(C) No.1018/2023, referred to above, the Dibrugarh University considered the representation of the respondent and found that he had not rendered service in the University from 31.12.2004 as he was not on the rolls of the University. The judgment dated 09.02.2015 passed in WP(C) No.2406/2005, referred to above, never directed for any reinstatement of