Consequential benefits do not inherently include back wages unless explicitly stated, as clarified in prior case law.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY For the Petitioner : Mr. Om Prakash Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Amit Kumar, S.C Mines-II For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Vineet Sinha, Advocate ---

Order No.12 Dated 28th July, 2025 Heard Mr. Om Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2.

2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for initiating a contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for willful and deliberate violation of the order of this Court dated 14.09.2023 passed in W.P.(S)

No. 4525 of 2021.

3. The operative part of the order dated 14.09.2023 passed in W.P.(S)

No. 4525 of 2021 reads as follows:

“5. In view of the aforesaid facts, therefore, the impugned letter no. P.O./NLOCP-DBOCP/Retirement/2020/1032 dated 1.8.2020 is hereby quashed and set aside with a further direction to the respondent no. 3 to reinstate the petitioner in service. The petitioner is entitled for continuation in service as per date of birth recorded in the statutory Form-B and he is also entitled to all the consequential benefits.”

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to the back wages during the period he was out of service and though the other facets of the order has been complied with, but the present contempt application lies on account of non-compliance of the consequential benefits which shall include the back wages as well.

5. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2 has submitted that consequential benefits may not necessarily reflect the payment of back wages since the petitioner did not work for considerable length of time and in such context, reference has been made in the case of “ K. Ananda Rao and others v. S.S. Rawat, IAS and others ”

reported in (2019) 13 SCC 24.

6. It appears that the petitioner has been reinstated in service and certain other benefits have also been extended to him, save and except, the back wages for the period during which he was out of service. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stressed upon the words “consequential benefits” as appearing in the order dated 14.09.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4525 of 2021. In K. Ananda Rao and others (supra), it has been held as follows:

“15. Since all these issues were not canvassed before this Court and were not gone into by this Court on 9-8-171, the question that arise sis whether the expression “consequential benefits” occurring in the order dated 9-8-17 must be given the interpretation that the employees were entitled to all salaries and emoluments for the period that they had not even worked in their respective organisations? The order dated 9-8-17 does not indicate that any such aspect of the matter was in contemplation of this Court or the matter was addressed from this standpoint. In the absence of any discussion, it is very difficult to say that this Court had thought of granting something which was in excess of what was contemplated in various policy documents culminating in the G.O. dated 8-8-17. Those policy documents were not overridden or in way found to be inoperative. As a matter of fact, they were not even referred to.

18. Thus, purely on the principle of parity the employees of the institution or entities in Schedules IX or X of the 2014 Act could not demand the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. That benefit came to be conferred under policy documents and finally by the G.O. dated 8-8-17. Thus, the source was in those policy documents and naturally the extent of benefits was also spelt out in those instruments issued by the Government. The circular dated 28-6-2016 which was more or less adopted