TENI YADAV Vs. E C L

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein has preferred the instant appeal since the learned Single Judge refused to pass any order directing the respondents to pay back wages. So, only point which falls for consideration before us is whether the appellant herein is entitled to the back wages for the period he was not allowed to join the service by the respondent authorities. From the records we find that the learned Single Judge by the interim order dated 23.12.2009 directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to resume his duties on the basis of the corrected date of birth.

(2.) The respondent Z challenged the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge before the Division Bench and the Division Bench of this Court refused to interfere with the aforesaid direction of the learned Single Judge. Thereafter Hon'ble Supreme Court also dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the respondent Coal Company challenging the order passed by the Division Bench. The respondent Coal Company, however, did not allow the appellant/writ petitioner to resume his duties even after the dismissal of the special leave petition being S.L.P. (C) 17194/2010 by the Supreme Court on 2nd August, 2010. The writ petition was ultimately decided finally by the said learned Single Judge on 8th March, 2011 in favour of the appellant/petitioner and the appellant/petitioner was thereafter allowed to resume his duties on 27th April, 2011.

(3.) The respondent Coal Company, therefore, cannot escape the liability to pay back wages to the appellant/petitioner at least from the date of the specific order passed by the learned Single Judge on 23.12.2009 in the writ petition being W.P. 11549 (W) of 2009 since the said order of the learned Single Judge was subsequently affirmed by the Division Bench and also not interfered with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.