1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2522 OF 2008 Union of India & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Shri Ratangiri Matargiri Gosavi .. Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar for the petitioners Mr.S.P.Inamdar for the respondent CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL & & & S.J.KATHAWALA, JJ. S.J.KATHAWALA, JJ. S.J.KATHAWALA, JJ. DATED : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 DATED : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 DATED : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners are the Union of India through General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad who are aggrieved by the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.174 of 2006 which came to be passed on 22.10.2007 alongwith application of the 2 respondent employee for reinstatement in service and back wages. It appears that when the application was disposed of by CAT, the respondent had already attained the age of super annuation. 3. We fully agree with C.A.T. It is an unfortunate case of the respondent employee running from pillar to post to seek his dues particularly when the respondent belongs to the lower strata of the society and a person from nomadic tribe living below the poverty line due to abrupt termination of his services. 4. The respondent employee was working under Assistant Mechanical Engineer, Purna, Loco-Shed, District Parbhani and it appears that due to some change in the administrative set up he was forgotten and was required to agitate the issue of his dismissal by approaching the authorities and making representations. Ultimately, he was left with no alternative. So he filed O.S. No.200 of 83 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna at the age of 40 years which ultimately came to be transferred to CAT, Mumbai on 25.09.1986 and was 3 registered as T.R.No.517 of 1986 on coming into force of the Administrative Tribunal Act. The said application was allowed by the Tribunal with a direction to the respondent to reinstate the respondent with back wages with a liberty to complete the inquiry against the respondent from the stage of proposed findings of guilt and supply of inquiry officer’s report to the applicant. Inspite of that, the respondent employee did not get a fair deal and his services were terminated. T.R.No.517 of 1986 was disposed of in favour of the respondent employee directing reinstatement with back wages which came to be challenged by the petitioner before the Supreme Court by preferring an S.L.P. No.15303 of 1992. It is not disputed that the S.L.P. was dismissed for non-prosecution on 17.1.1996. The aforesaid facts clearly indicate that the petitioner Railways not only refused the relief sought by CAT to the respondent by permitting him to join services but even failed to give any intimation to him of the fact that their SLP is dismissed and he should resume his duty and collect backwages by any notice and kept the petitioner waiting till he retired from services. 4 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the respondent has not been able to make out any case for back wages, granting him full back wages would not be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. In our view, this submission on the part of the petitioners cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the petitioners cannot take advantage of their wrong as it is the petitioners who have failed to reinstate him in service after they lost the matter in CAT nor placed any material on record to show that the respondent was gainfully employed, after his services were terminated. 7. It is a settled law that in the ordinary course, employee who is reinstated with back wages is entitled for full back wages unless something contrary is placed on record which disentitles him from claiming such benefits. Nothing has been placed on record to show, on the other hand, the lapse is on the part of the employer South Central Railway. Therefore, CAT was justified in 5 dismissing the application with cost and the concerned head of department has been directed to pay for half the cost in the matter who had contested the matter by filing his affidavit and has concealed in his affidavit dated 19.1.07 that the SLP preferred has been dismissed from CAT. 8. We do not find there is any error or illegality committed by CAT in the matter. CAT has also quoted from the decision of the Supreme Court presided over by Hon’ble Justice Shri K.G.Balakrishnan (now C.J.I.) and Hon’ble Justice Shri Venkatarama Reddi, JJ as under: ".... Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent never approached the Corporation nor did he take any steps for execution of the award and, therefore, the appellant did not reinstate the respondents. We do not consider this as a justifiable stand on the part of the appellant Corporation. The absence of any material on record to show as to why the Corporation could not implement the award, the respondent is justified in getting full wages from 21.06.1997 till reinstatement is effected. The directions of the High Court to pay 50% of the back wages is set aside but the appellant is directed to pay full wages from 21.06.1997 till reinstatement." 6 9. We, therefore, dismiss the petition with cost which we quantify at Rs.25,000/-. Needless to say that dismissal of the petition warrants the petitioner to discharge the liability towards the dues of the respondent employee as expeditiously as possible preferably within 4 weeks. ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( S.J. KATHAWALA, J ) ( S.J. KATHAWALA, J ) ( S.J. KATHAWALA, J )