Ravi R. Tripathi, J.
1. Rule. Mr. Murli Devnani, learned Advocate appearing for Mr. A.M. Dagli, learned Advocate for the respondent, waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent.
2. By filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, holding that the petitioner is entitled to get the back-wages with periodical increments and all other consequential benefits as if he was in service all through out. It is the case of the petitioner that even after the order of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 661 of 1997 in Special Civil Application No. 6283 of 1996 (Coram : Honourable the Chief Justice, Mr. K.G. Balakrishnan and Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal) dated 30th July, 1998, the respondent-Corporation is not paying the back-wages with periodical increments to which the petitioner is entitled treating him to be in service all through out and all other consequential benefits. The order of the Division bench reads as under :
“For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal partly succeeds. The order passed by the learned Single judge by which full back-wages have been denied to the appellant, is hereby set aside and quashed. We hold that the appellant is entitled to 50% back-wages for the interregnum period. The respondent is directed to pay 50% back-wages to the appellant as early as possible and preferably within two months from the date of receipt of writ. The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.”
2. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner relied upon a judgement in the matter between Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Prem Chand Gupta, reported at (2000) 10 SCC 115, to contend that the petitioner is entitled not only for back-wages, but, also all other consequential benefits including increments in the available time-scale and revisions of the time-scale, if any, and also further service benefits as per the rules and regulations applicable to him. The learned Advocate submitted that the Apex Court was considering that when termination of the respondent’s services came to be declared as invalid, being violative of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the case dragged on for 33 years, in which neither of the contesting parties were at fault and that the delay was due to pendency of the case in Courts. The employer being a Municipal Corporation, whose funds were primarily meant for public benefit, what amount should be allowed as back-wages. The Apex Court was pleased to allow 50% back-wages with all other consequential benefits in full.
The learned Advocate pointed out that, the Apex Court was pleased to modify the impugned order of the High Court by directing that the respondent-workman will be entitled to get 50% of back-wages from the date of his termination till his actual reinstatement in service of the Corporation with continuity of service, and that the respondent-workman will also be entitled to all other consequential benefits including increments in the available time-scale and revisions of time-scale, if any, and also further service benefits as per the rules and regulations of the appellant-Corporation, being treated to have been in continuous service of the appellant-Corporation from 29th April, 1966 all throughout till reinstatement.
3. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this petition is rejected as having found no substance. After the order of the Division Bench, nothing further remains to be done. However, the respondent-Corporation shall pay the back-wages to the petitioner-workman in accordance with law. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.