CWP(T) No.9244/2008 28.12.2010 Present: Mr. H. K. Paul, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents None appeared for the parties on 24.12.2010, when the matter was directed to be listed on 27.12.1010. Even on 27.12.1010 none appeared for the parties, but in the interest of justice matter was directed to be listed today. Inspite of repeated calls even today none has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents. Consequently matter is being heard in their absence. 2. Petitioner was working as T-Mate on daily wages. Apparently his services were orally terminated w.e.f. 27.4.1995. He was constrained to file O.A.(M) No. 284/95 before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Shimla. Said OA was decided in terms of judgment dated 6.11.2001 operative portion of which reads as under:- “Taking into consideration all the facts the termination of the applicant is set aside and the respondents are directed to re- engage him in the same capacity from where his services were dis-engaged, however, respondents are at liberty to do away with the services of the applicant if they so desire in accordance with law and procedure in this behalf. The period from the date of his dis-engagement and re-engagement shall be counted towards his seniority, however the applicant shall not be entitled for backwages. The respondents are directed to re-engage the applicant within a period of fifteen days from the date of this order.” 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions petitioner was re- engaged vide orders dated 12.11.2001 (Annexure A-2). It also cannot be disputed, as is evident from the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondents, that petitioner services as T-Mate were regularized w.e.f. 13.1.1998 i.e. the date when persons junior to him were accorded work charge status. Though petitioner was subsequently regularised as a T-Mate w.e.f. 1.9.2001, but however, benefit of back wages was not given to him w.e.f. 13.11.2001 upto 18.9.2003. This apparently was done for the reason that vide order dated 6.11.2001 petitioner was held not entitled to back wages. 4. Stand taken by the respondents is obviously erroneous and contrary to the judgment passed in favour of the petitioner. Order was passed on 6.11.2001 and not in the year 2003. Petitioner was notionally promoted w.e.f. 13.1.1998. Respondents rightly did not give benefit of back wages till the time petitioner rights had forfeited in terms of the judgment. 5. I see no reason as to why petitioner was not paid full wages for the period 13.11.2001 to 18.9.2003. Consequently, present petition is accordingly allowed. Petitioner is held entitled to back wages for this period. Respondents are directed to release the same within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which, thereafter petitioner shall be entitled to interest @9% per annum. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. December 28, 2010 (rana)