CR No. 3376 of 1993 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 3376 of 1993 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.11.2010 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala .....Petitioner Versus Rajinder Kumar Malhotra ….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present revision petition is to an order passed by the learned Executing Court on 20.8.1993, whereby as a consequence of setting aside of order or removal from service dated 23.2.1984, the decree holder was found to be entitled to all the wages. An order of punishment of removal from service was passed against the decree holder on 23.2.1984. The said order was set CR No. 3376 of 1993 (O&M) [2] aside by the learned trial Court on 8.2.1988. However, in appeal, vide judgment and decree dated 15.3.1990 passed by the first Appellate Court, the order granting consequential benefits was set aside. But liberty was granted to the management to proceed against the employee in accordance with law. Shri Jagdish Marwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the management has not proceeded against the employee in pursuance of the liberty granted and the decree holder has been reinstated vide order dated 6.12.1990, but it is contended that since the direction regarding payment of consequential benefits passed by the learned trial Court, was set aside by the learned first Appellate Court, therefore, the decree holder is not entitled to the wages for the intervening period i.e. from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable in view of the conduct of the petitioner itself. Though the management had liberty to proceed against the employee in terms of the liberty granted by the learned first Appellate Court, but the management decided not to continue with the disciplinary proceedings. Once the management has reinstated the employee as a consequence of setting aside the order of removal dated 23.2.1984, the normal and natural consequence is that the said employee is deemed to be in service and is entitled to all benefits for such period. Thus, I do not find that there is any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Executing Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Executing Court has ordered payment of interest on the arrears of wages. There is no direction in the decree for payment of interest on the arrears of wages consequent to the reinstatement of CR No. 3376 of 1993 (O&M) [3] the employee, therefore, the decree holder shall not be entitled to any interest on the arrears of wages consequent to his reinstatement. With said clarification, the present revision petition stands disposed of. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 22-11-2010 ds