. HIH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH jCoram: f Hon’ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon’ble Shri R.N. Chand%rakar. JJ Writ Aggea! No.05 of 2010 , i 1. Food Corporation g of India; 16/20, _Bara Khamba ‘Lafne, New Delhi, through — Its Managing Director Zonal Manager, Fo§od Corporation o india, Zonal Office West Mumbai Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of lndiaj, Chetak Building, , Habib Ganj, Bhopal ;(MP)’ Through-The Area ‘ Manager, Foo COrporation of lndia, District Oftice, Raipur(CG) Am; énan‘ts Respondents No.1 to 3 i{ ‘l ti; - lb Resgondents Fetitioners Smt. Chanda Sharma, aged not described, widow of Late Surendra Kumar Sharma Kumari Jyoti Sharma, aged. not described, daughter of Late Surendra Kumar Sharma ' Shailendra Kumar Sharma, aged not described, son of ’ Shri Surendra Kumar Sharm‘a . Kumari Kalpana Sharma, aged not described, daughter of late Surendra- Kumar Sharma a, Resp No.1 to 4 are resident .of lka‘rapara, Raipur (CG) 7 ishi Sharma, aged about 47 years, daughter of Late Surendra Kumar Sharma ' ‘ Shashi Sharma, aged about 43 years, daughter of Late Surendra Kumar Sharma \ Kiran Sharma, aged about 38 years, daughter of Late Surendra Kumar Sharma, Respondent No.5 to 7 areresiden of Sanjay Nagar, Raipur (CG) Present? ShriSaif Khan,counsei-forthe appellants. . -‘N0s.‘l‘,‘2and4to UShri Ahil Kumar 7. Pandey, counsel t/ for respohdent G d f j} T N .- t ORAL JUDGMENT (31 .91 .2G1 1) The netitioner in the writ petition Was working as Asstt Grade—iii (Deooti at Mandlr Hasaud §aiour With the Food Cornoration of india His name was struck off from the rolls With effect from 25.07.1984 on the ground that he remained abeent from duty withoui prior permission of the competent authority front 2‘5 O7 1984 to 17 08 1984 as there Was no leave avaiiabie either In the account of the petitioner against eamed leave or half pav ieave and the petitioner did not respond to the notice published in the newspapers which had Wide crroulatlon in Bhopal and in Raipur. 2. ‘ The writ petition of the petitioner, has been atlowed by leatned Single Judge with an observation that he was removed froth service without holding proper enquiry as envisaged under Regulations 58 of the Food Corporation . of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (for short “the Regulations; 1971”). Learned Single Judge has further held that the petitioner would be entitle for; full back wages-from the date he was removed from th _ sen/ice till he would have retired from service on attaining the ag r of superannuation, with all cOnsequential benefits. 3. i Shri Saif Khan, learned counsel for appellants/Corporation argued that the date‘of birth of the petitioner was 18.09.1938 whereas, he died on 1406,1994, after'attaining the age of 56 ye’ars, whereas by the impugned order, full back wages from the date the petitioner was removed from the service till he would have retired from service on attaining the age oflsuperannuation with other‘co‘nseq'uential benefits have been allowed though the petitioner died at the age of 56 years, even before attaining the age of superannuation. _\ 4; Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the atter of Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs Venkatesan d e e m \M reported in AIR 2010 supreme Court 20$ it was argued that it is settled law that the relief of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic. It was necessary for the peti ioner to plead that he wes‘not gainfully employed from the date of his termination and only in such contingencies, the burden would have shifted to the employer. in the absence of any pleadingiby the petitioner in the writ petition, learned Single Judge was notijustitied in allowing full back Wages to the petitioner that too, till the date the petitioner would have attained the age of superannuation. it 5. On the other hand; .Shri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned L edunsel for respondents submitted that the writ petition was filed by‘the petitioner in his lifetime on 17 12 1991 His representation was reieoted bv the competent authority on 15 10 1990 vcde Annexure P-9 and his revrew petition was reiected In the month of November, 1991i The petitioner has pleaded in paragraph-12 of the writ petition that 5 years pof service was left for him when he was terminated arbitrarily depriving him of his means of livelihood in contraVention of Article 21 of the constitution of India. Hovvjever, he died on, 14.06.1994 during pendency of the petition and; thereafter, his legal representatives have prosecuted the writ petition, which was finally decided by the impugned order on 23.11.2009. ln these'circumstances, learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition with full back wages and other consequential benefts However since the petitioner died on 14 O6 1994 he was entitled for back wages only till 14 O6 1994 and conseouentiai benefts then after 6. j ‘Heard learned counsel [or the parties. Perused [the pieadings of the respective parties as also the impugned order. x 7. There is no dispute that the petitioner died on 14.06.1994 n ice. ieven,before attaining‘the age of superannuation. Therefore, directions in the impugned order that the petitioner Would be entitled for back wages from the date of terminatioh till the date the petitioner would have attained the age of superannUation cahnot be sustained. However, after going through the pleadings in the writ petition and counter affidavit of the respondents and considering that the petitioner died in the year 1994 and thereafter, his legal representatives proseeuted the writ petition, which was finally decided in the year 2009; we are of the opinion that learned Single Judge was wholly justified in allowing the writ petition with full back wages and other conSequential benefits. ' l 8. : For the aforesaid reasons, thewrit appeal is disposed of withithe direction to appellants/Corporation to pay the back wages from the ‘date the order of removal was passed‘till 14.06.1994 i.e. when the petitioner died, with all consequential benefits, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy? of this order. No order as to costs. . A I / Sap “ Dhirendra Mishra irl \ i g” l \ / sol/- i mi. WW y Priya s ‘l \ Judge l J r Judge , “a ‘ t