Reinstatement after illegal termination entitles the employee to back wages and retirement benefits, but awarding back wages is not automatic and depends on individual circumstances.

ORDER:

Petitioner’s husband Sri M. Murali Krishna was employed by the 1st respondent - Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), as a mechanic from 03.11.1971 and was later promoted to Leading Hand in 1974. He was removed from service on 19.10.2004. Aggrieved thereby, Sri Murali Krishna filed Writ Petition No. 20032 of 2004, which was disposed of by order dated 28.02.2005 with a direction to file an Appeal before the appropriate Appellate Authority. The said order was appealed in Writ Appeal No. 769 of 2005, which was allowed on 05.04.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. Since respondents did not comply with the said judgment, Contempt Case No. 884 of 2007 was filed. At that stage, respondents filed S.L.P. No. 16483 of 2005 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, resulting in stay of order in Writ Appeal No. 769 of 2005. The Supreme Court eventually dismissed the SLP on 02.03.2007, affirming the order in W.A. No. 769 of 2005. Following dismissal of SLP, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings on 18.04.2007 reinstating M. Murali Krishna into service who submitted joining report on 26.04.2007 and continued his duties under the control of the 3rd respondent till his retirement on 31.05.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. However, petitioner alleges that pay fixation for her husband was not done appropriately, particularly regarding notional increments for the period of his removal and revision of pay scales under R.P.S. 2005. She further claims that no wages were paid for the period from 19.10.2004 to 31.05.2007, and no retirement benefits, including pension, gratuity and un-availed earned leave wages were provided to her husband during his retirement process. Despite legal directions and communications, including legal notice got issued by her husband on 20.07.2007, no satisfactory response was received from respondents. Petitioner states that her husband filed Contempt Case No. 884 of 2007, which was disposed of with liberty to pursue other remedies. According to petitioner, despite payment of Rs. 80,000/- to her husband by the 3rd respondent, no details regarding this payment were provided to him and petitioner was unaware of the specifics.

Petitioner contends that her husband was entitled to several retirement benefits that have been withheld, including pension from 01.06.2007 till his death on 05.09.2010, and family pension from 06.09.2010 onwards as well as Provident Fund (PF) dues, gratuity, un-availed earned leave wages and other retirement benefits under the schemes such as the S.B.T., S.R.B.S., and C.C.S. He was also entitled to monthly cash benefits under S.R.B.S. scheme, which have not been duly processed or paid. She claims that revision of pay scales that took place in 2005, which was applicable from 01.04.2005, was not reflected in her husband’s salary, and he was denied notional increments and back wages for the period of his removal. Therefore, On 01.11.2010, petitioner got issued another legal notice to the Corporation demanding payment of dues, including gratuity, un-availed earned leave wages, and wages from 19.10.2004 till his reinstatement in 2007, however, no response was received from the 1st respondent. Petitioner contends that she has been left without any source of income following her husband’s death, as such, she is entitled to family pension under the Employees Family Pension Scheme.

2. While issuing rule nisi, on 23.03.2011, this Court directed Respondents 1 to 3 to consider the case of petitioner for payment of gratuity, un-availed earned leave wages and further, Respondents 4 and 5 shall consider the case of petitioner for payment of provident fund along with pension, in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders.

3. Pursuant to the notice, the Corporation filed counter affidavit stating that service record of petitioner’s husband do not support her claim of non-payment of retirement benefits or pension. Sri Murali Krishna had been a member of the Staff Retir