Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shashibhushan Prasad (since deceased, represented by legal representatives), was a Senior Assistant in the National Textile Corporation at Model Mills, Nagpur. He was dismissed from service on 11.02.1992 after a disciplinary enquiry. He challenged the dismissal in Writ Petition No. 782 of 1992, which was allowed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) on 18.04.2007. The court set aside the termination order and granted reinstatement with 75% back wages from the date of dismissal (11.02.1992) till the date of his superannuation (12.03.1999). The respondents paid 75% back wages for that period amounting to Rs.2,95,769/-, gratuity of Rs.1,02,969/-, leave with pay of Rs.4,759/-, and costs of Rs.5,000/-. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition seeking additional reliefs: (1) full salary for the suspension period from 19.08.1990 to 11.02.1992, (2) arrears of salary for the period from 13.03.1999 to 12.03.2001 on the ground that he should have superannuated at 60 years instead of 58 years, and (3) other consequential benefits including deemed date of promotion. The petitioner also alleged that the respondents had deducted an amount of Rs.30,182/- towards employer's share in provident fund from the amount payable, which the respondents disputed. The court held that the claim for full suspension salary was not covered by the earlier judgment, which only dealt with back wages from dismissal onwards. The claim for arrears based on extended retirement age was not raised in the earlier writ petition and could not be entertained now. The dispute regarding deduction of employer's provident fund share involved disputed questions of fact not suitable for writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Suspension Period - Full Salary - The petitioner claimed full salary for suspension period from 19.08.1990 to 11.02.1992, but the earlier judgment in W.P. No. 782/1992 granted reinstatement with 75% back wages from dismissal till superannuation, which did not cover suspension period. Held that the claim for full suspension salary is not covered by the earlier judgment and cannot be granted (Paras 1-4). B) Service Law - Superannuation Age - Arrears of Salary - The petitioner claimed arrears for period from 13.03.1999 to 12.03.2001 on ground that superannuation age should be 60 years, but the earlier judgment did not decide this issue and the petitioner did not raise it in the earlier writ petition. Held that the claim for arrears based on extended retirement age is not maintainable (Paras 1-4). C) Service Law - Deduction from Back Wages - Employer's Share in Provident Fund - The petitioner alleged that respondents deducted employer's share in provident fund from the amount payable, but this fact was disputed by respondents. Held that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to full salary for the suspension period from 19.08.1990 to 11.02.1992 and arrears of salary for the period from 13.03.1999 to 12.03.2001 on the ground of entitlement to superannuation at 60 years, and whether the respondents could deduct employer's share in provident fund from the amount payable.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Res judicata
- Consequential benefits limited to earlier judgment
- No entitlement to full suspension salary
- No entitlement to arrears for extended retirement age
