RAJENDRA MISTRI Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing the letter dated 23.06.2007, issued by the Respondent No. 5, whereby the back wages for the period from 01.07.2006 to 23.05.2007 has been denied and the petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents for release of the salary and other admissible benefits for the aforesaid period during which the petitioner was illegally superannuated and prevented from discharging the duties.

(2.) The facts in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Mechanical Fitter in the year 1971 in Bilboro Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. At the time of entry into service, the date of birth declared by the petitioner was 16.07.1949, which has been duly recorded in the service record, such as, Identity Card, B Form Register, which are statutory service records of the employee in the collieries of B.C.C.L. It has been averred in the writ application that the date of birth of the petitioner, was altered from 16.07.1949 to 01.07.1946. Being aggrieved by the unilateral alteration of the date of birth, the petitioner knocked the door of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 6261 of 2005, praying, inter alia, for direction to the respondents not to superannuate the petitioner from services except on the basis of the date of birth as recorded in the service excerpts and the said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 04.05.2006 with direction upon the respondents to treat the petitioner's date of birth as 16th July, 1949 and allow the petitioner to continue in service till the date of attaining the age of superannuation as per Annexure-1 to the writ petition but the petitioner was prematurely superannuated with effect from 01.07.2006. Due to non-compliance of the order, a Contempt Case (C) No. 359 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner for initiation of the contempt proceedings against the respondents. The Respondents filed L.P.A. No. 346 of 2006, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2006. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the Appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench, the respondents preferred S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Apex Court vide S.L.P. No. 5671 of 2007, which was also dismissed vide Annexure-3 to the writ application. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.05.2007, passed by the respondent no. 4, the petitioner was directed to be re-instated with immediate effect, basing on the date of birth, as 16.07.1949 as per Annexure-4 to the writ petition and the petitioner submitted his joining and joined on the said post on 24.05.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his representation for payment of back wages from 01.07.2006 to 23.05.2007 during which the petitioner was forced to sit idle and the respondent no. 4 vide order dated 23.06.2007 vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition, has passed the order in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for back wages, which is impugned in this writ petition. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 23.06.2007 vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition, the petitioner left with no other efficacious, speedy and alternative remedy, has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) During course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the action of the respondents in denying the claims of back wages by passing of the impugned order vide Annexure-6 smacks of arbitrary and high-handed action being not in consonance with the order, passed on 04.05.2006 in W.P. (S) No. 6261 of 2005. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the back wages from 01.07.2006 to 23.05.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that because of the adamantine attitude of the respondents, the petitioner has been forced to sit idle for the aforesaid period and during the said interregnum period, the petitioner has been subjected to serious financial stringencies. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decisions reported in L.P.A. No. 425 of 2015, Sudhir Kumar Mandal v. Steel Authority of India Limited and others as well as in Nirmal Kumar Singh v. The Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors., passed in L.P.A. No. 67 of 2015 and submits that the action of the respondents being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is entitled to the back wages.