Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, having served as Lineman Grade I retired from the service of the respondent Board on 31.07.2001. While he was in service, as the petitioner was alleged to be absent from 01.12.1993 to 31.12.1994, treating it as unauthorised absence, the respondent Board did not pay him any salary or other service benefits for the said period.
WPC 28702/14 2
3. When the petitioner raised an industrial dispute based on the direction of this Court in Exhibit P1 judgment, the Industrial Tribunal, in turn, through Exhibit P2 award, directed the respondent Board to pay the arrears of salary, having found that the petitioner had actually worked during that period. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent Board filed W.P.(C)No.17052/2008 and invited Exhibit P5 judgment, which in fact confirmed the award of the Industrial Tribunal. On petitioner's part, having made a representation for the implementation of the award and having failed in his efforts, he once again approached this Court and invited Exhibit P4 judgment. Despite these multiple rounds of litigation, the respondent Board does not seem to have settled the issue by paying the arrears of salary and other benefits to the petitioner. Under those circumstances, the petitioner has approached the Court, yet again.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board has fairly admitted that the Board is bound to pay the WPC 28702/14 3 arrears of salary for the period in question along with other service benefits to the petitioner and that it is only a matter of time before the Board could settle all the dues of the petitioner taking into account the period from 01.12.1993 to 31.12.1994 as part of his service.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the admission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent Board to settle the service benefits of the petitioner in terms of Exhibit P2 award, as has been confirmed subsequently by this Court, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is further directed that the Board shall re-fix the pensionary benefits of the petitioner taking into account the period mentioned above.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv