Jharkhand High Court
Chitaranjan Prasad vs The Union Of India on 7 July, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:18019-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1054 of 2025
---
Chitaranjan Prasad, son of Late Moti Lal, resident of Quarter
No.2482, Street No. 20, Sector-VIII/B, P.O. & P.S. Sector- IX,
Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Steel,
New Delhi
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Bokaro Steel Plant, a unit of
Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL), P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Steel
City, District- Bokaro
3. The General Manager (SMS-1), Welfare Building, Bokaro
Steel Plant, a unit of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL), P.O. &
P.S.- Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro
.... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhanu Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Bharti Kumari, Advocate
For the Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I.
Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, CGC
For the Resp. Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
---
Reserved on 30.06.2025 Pronounced on 07.07.2025
Per : Rajesh Shankar, J. :
The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing and
setting aside the order dated 22.08.2023 passed in O.A.No.
051/00634/2023 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit
Bench at Ranchi (in short "the Tribunal") dismissed the said O.A. filed
by the petitioner seeking arrears of salary (back wages) for the
period when he was under punishment of removal from service i.e.,
the period from the date of dismissal till one day prior to his date of
joining on reinstatement (11.02.2013 to 19.09.2019). Further prayer
has been made for issuance of direction upon the concerned
respondents to modify the office order dated 18.09.2019 issued by
2025:JHHC:18019-DB
the AGM (Personnel-OD), Bokaro Steel Plant, Steel Authority of India
Limited, reinstating the petitioner without back wages. The petitioner
has also prayed for directing the concerned respondents to make
payment of arrears of salary for the period from 11.02.2013 to
19.09.2019 with statutory interest as he joined the duty on
20.09.2019 after reinstatement and he was compelled to remain out
of job from 11.02.2013 to 19.09.2019 on account of illegal order of
termination issued by the respondent authorities as well as he was
not under any gainful employment during the said period.
2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ
petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Operator in
Bokaro Steel Plant where he joined on 29.11.1982 and in due course
he was promoted as Junior Officer. A complaint was made against
him on 02.06.2009 that he actually belonged to 'Yadav (Gwala)'
caste whereas he had submitted wrong caste certificate at the time
of his initial appointment mentioning his caste as 'Rajwar'
and accordingly, the petitioner was directed to submit his caste
certificate on 27.11.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted
his caste certificate issued from Chas Block, Bokaro on 05.12.2009 in
which it was mentioned that he belonged to 'Rajwar' caste and he
was a resident of Village-Gora Bali, P.O. and P.S.-Balidih, District-
Bokaro. Subsequently, departmental proceeding was initiated against
the petitioner and a chargesheet dated 22.03.2010 was issued
against him alleging therein that the caste certificate submitted by
him at the time of initial appointment on 29.11.1982 mentioned his
permanent residence as "Village and P.O.-Morsanda, P.S.-Falka,
District- Katihar" whereas the caste certificate submitted on
2025:JHHC:18019-DB
11.12.2009 showed his permanent residence as "Village-Gora
Bali, P.O. and P.S.-Balidih, District-Bokaro".
3. After conclusion of the departmental proceeding, the
petitioner was terminated from service vide order dated-
11.02.2013. The petitioner then filed a writ petition being W. P. (S)
No.-1296 of 2013 which was disposed of vide order dated 05.12.2014
whereby he was directed to approach the Central Administrative
Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred O.A. No. 051/ 00125/
2015 before the Tribunal which was decided vide order dated
20.08.2015 directing the petitioner to approach the appellate
authority. Since, the petitioner had already availed departmental
remedy of appeal on 16.02.2013 against the order of termination
dated 11.02.2013 which was rejected vide order dated 31.07.2013,
he made another representation dated 12.10.2015 in pursuance of
the Tribunal's order which was not decided.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed O.A No. 051/00147/2016
challenging the order of termination dated 11.02.2013 and appellate
order dated 31.07.2013 which was disposed of vide order dated
19.12.2018 quashing the order of termination dated 11.02.2013 as
well as the appellate order dated 31.07.2013 with all consequential
benefits and the respondents were given liberty to get the caste
certificates submitted by the petitioner verified and if the same were
found to be incorrect, to take subsequent action as deemed fit by
cancelling the certificates.
5. The respondents filed writ petition being W.P. (S) No.- 1555 of
2019 challenging the order passed in O.A. No. 051/00147/2016 which
was dismissed vide order dated 16.07.2019. Thereafter, the
2025:JHHC:18019-DB
respondents issued Office Order dated 18.09.2019 reinstating the
petitioner with the following benefits:-
(i) The period from date of dismissal, i.e. 11.02.2013 to his
date of joining on reinstatement would be counted as
continuity of service.
(ii) His pay on his joining would be fixed by giving him Annual
increment w.e.f. 11.02.2013 to his date of joining
on reinstatement on notional basis. He would start drawing
his salary from the date of re-joining the duty. Subsequently,
he would be placed in E1 grade notionally w.e.f. 31.12.2009.
6. The petitioner filed contempt petition being C.P. No.-70 of
2019, however the same was dropped vide order dated 19.09.2019
observing that the order dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Tribunal
had already been complied. Thereafter, the petitioner filed
M.A./284/2021 before the Tribunal for restoration/revival of the
contempt case being C.P. No.-70 of 2019, however the same was
dismissed vide order dated 19.07.2023 observing that the revival
of contempt would tantamount to review of the order dated
19.09.2019 whereby contempt proceeding was dropped. The
petitioner preferred O.A. No. 051/00634/2023 for issuance of
direction upon the respondent authorities to make payment of
back wages to him for the entire period of compulsory absence w.e.f.
11.02.2013 i.e. the date of termination till 19.09.2019 (one day prior
to the date of re-joining i.e. 20.09.2019), however the same was
dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.08.2023 observing that the
same was not maintainable being barred by the principle of res-
judicata.
2025:JHHC:18019-DB
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was ordered to be reinstated with all consequential benefits and as
such it was incumbent upon the respondent authorities to treat his
period of absence as period spent on duty and accordingly, the
petitioner should be paid the entire back wages as he was not under
any gainful employment during the period of absence.
8. It is further submitted that once the petitioner was compelled
to remain out of service on the strength of illegal order, which
was quashed by the learned Tribunal and the same was upheld
by this Court, there was no reason for denial of his back wages.
9. It is also submitted that the petitioner discharged his duties
with utmost satisfaction of the authorities and was granted regular
promotion from time-to-time. Moreover, after attaining the age of
superannuation, the petitioner retired from service w.e.f. 31.12.2022.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the
impugned order dated 22.08.2023 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.
051/00634/2023 is in the teeth of the order dated 19.12.2018 passed
by the Tribunal in O.A. No.051/00147/2016 whereby the termination
order of the petitioner dated 11.02.2013 as well as the order of the
appellate authority dated 31.07.2013 were quashed
granting all consequential benefits.
11. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and
3 submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the prayer
made in O.A. No. 051/00634/2023 as the order dated 19.09.2019
passed in contempt petition being C.P. No. 70 of 2019 was never
challenged by the petitioner before higher forum and thus had
attained finality.
2025:JHHC:18019-DB
12. It is further submitted that the petitioner had declared in
his personal data form dated 19.04.1985 that he belonged to
'Scheduled Caste' category and had submitted caste certificate issued
by Block Development Officer, Falka, Katihar (Bihar) on 02.03.1979. A
complaint was received on 02.06.2009 from 08 employees of Bokaro
Steel Plant working in SMS-I that the caste certificate submitted by
the petitioner at the time of his joining was fake and he belonged to
the caste "Yadav (Gwala)" and not to the caste "Rajwar" as was
mentioned in his caste certificate. Thereafter, Vigilance Department
registered Complaint No. BSL/Vig./09/93 dated 17.06.2009 and the
petitioner's caste certificate was sent to the Block Development
Officer, Falka, Katihar (Bihar), who reported vide letter no. 912
dated 29.07.2009 that he was unable to authenticate the same as the
register relating to the concerned matter could not be traced.
However, as per investigation report of the said Block Development
Officer based on land revenue and other records, the petitioner
was said to be belonging to the caste "Yadav (Gwala)".
13. It is also submitted that upon issuance of notice to the
petitioner, he produced another Caste Certificate No. 6841 dated
05.12.2009 purportedly issued by the Circle Officer, Chas, Bokaro,
wherein he was shown to be belonging to caste "Rajwar" as well as
the resident of Jharkhand by birth.
14. It is lastly contended that the grant of consequential
benefit does not automatically include payment of full back wages.
15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials available on record.
16. The petitioner is claiming back wages for the period he was
2025:JHHC:18019-DB
absent from duty on account of his termination from service pursuant
to the office order dated 11.02.2013. It is contended that since the
order of termination of the petitioner was quashed by the Tribunal
vide order dated 19.12.2018 passed in O.A No. 051/00147/2016 with
all consequential benefits and the same was also affirmed by the
Single Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1555 of 2019, he is entitled
to get the back wages for the period he was absent from his duty on
account of order of termination that too when he was not in any
gainful employment during the said period.
17. The claim of the petitioner is that he was not engaged in any
gainful employment during the period of termination. The said factual
aspect has not been controverted by learned counsel for the
respondents, however it has been contended that the learned
Tribunal has rightly dismissed O.A. No. 051/00634/2023 being barred
by the principle of res judicata since the order passed in C.P. No. 70
of 2019 whereby the Tribunal had observed that the order dated
19.12.2018 had been complied, was not challenged by the petitioner
before any higher forum and the same had attained finality.
18. To appreciate the rival contentions of learned counsel for the
parties, we have perused the order dated 19.12.2018 passed in O.A.
No. 051/00147/2016 which reveals that the order of termination of
the petitioner was quashed with all consequential benefits. The said
order was challenged by the respondents by filing a writ petition
being W.P.(S) No. 1555 of 2019, however the same was also
dismissed by a Single Bench of this court vide order dated
16.07.2019. The respondents did not challenge the order dated
16.07.2019 and as such the same attained finality. Though, the
2025:JHHC:18019-DB
respondents vide Office Order dated 18.09.2019, reinstated the
petitioner in service, however his pay was fixed by giving him annual
increment w.e.f 11.02.2013 to his date of joining on reinstatement on
notional basis. The petitioner was not granted back wages for the
period he was absent from duty on account of his termination despite
the fact that the Tribunal had granted him all consequential benefits
vide order dated 19.12.2018.
19. We have perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
rendered in the case of Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satyendra
Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Culcutta &
Others reported in (1999) 3 SCC 60 wherein the order of
termination was quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing
reinstatement of the employee with back wages observing that there
was no material to show that the employee was gainfully employed
during the period he was out of service.
20. We have also gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court rendered in the case of Manorma Verma (Smt.)
Vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in 1994 Supp (3) SCC 671
wherein it has been held as under: -
"4. We do not see any justification for the High Court
not allowing the appellant back wages after it came
to the conclusion that the termination was illegal.
Ordinarily, the consequential order of grant of back
wages must follow, unless there are reasons on
record which would justify a departure from the
normal order. We do not see any reasons on record to
come to the conclusion that the appellant was not
entitled to back wages. There is also nothing on
record to show that during the period she was out of
service, she was gainfully employed elsewhere. In
the circumstances we allow this appeal and set aside
that part of the High Court's order by which the
2025:JHHC:18019-DB
appellant was denied back wages and award her back
wages from the date of termination of service till she
was reinstated in service under the impugned order
of the High Court. The appellant will be paid her back
wages within three months from today. There will be
no order as to costs."
21. It is thus well settled principle of law that grant of back wages
on setting aside the order of termination is not automatic. However, if
it is found that the termination of an employee was illegal and he/she
was not gainfully employed during the period of termination, the
employee is awarded backwages while passing the order of
reinstatement.
22. In the case in hand, the petitioner has claimed that he was not
gainfully employed during the period of termination and the said
claim of the petitioner has not been controverted by the respondents.
Thus, we are of the view that learned Tribunal while quashing the
order of termination of the petitioner had rightly granted all
consequential benefits, which in our view would also include back
wages.
23. So far the order passed in CP No. 70 of 2019 is concerned, the
learned Tribunal while dropping the contempt proceeding had merely
observed that the order passed by the Tribunal had been complied,
however it was not discussed as to whether order of fixation of pay
of the petitioner by providing him annual increment w.e.f. 11.02.2013
to his date of joining on reinstatement on notional basis was
satisfactory compliance of the order dated 19.12.2018 whereby the
petitioner was awarded all consequential benefits.
24. We have also perused the order dated 22.08.2023 passed in
O.A No. 051/00634/2023 which has been dismissed as not
maintainable by observing as under:-
2025:JHHC:18019-DB
"11. It is evident that applicant had filed Contempt
Petition, CCPA No. 70/2019 alleging non-compliance
of the order passed by the Tribunal in OA No.
147/2016 quashing the order of termination
with consequential benefits. The Tribunal,
considering the order passed by respondents
authority on 18.09.2019 held that the order passed
by this Tribunal had been complied with and decided
to drop the CP and discharge the notice issued to the
respondents. As Tribunal held that respondent had
complied with the order, issuing notice in this OA
would imply that this Tribunal is now sitting in review
of own order passed earlier. After the Tribunal had
decided OA No. 147/2016 directing the respondents
to reinstate the applicant in service with all
consequential benefits, the present OA praying for
back wages for the period when applicant was under
the punishment of removal from service is barred
by the principle of res judicata. We are inclined to
agree with the counsel for respondents that applicant
should have challenged the Tribunal's decision to
drop in the Contempt Petition before appropriate
forum."
25. Thus, the Tribunal vide the aforesaid order, has dismissed O.A
No. 051/00634/2023 by applying the principle of res-judicata
observing that CP No. 70 of 2019 was dropped on the ground that
the order dated 19.12.2018 passed in O.A. No. 051/00147/2016 had
been complied.
26. It is a well settled principle of law that the court exercising
contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into questions which
have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order,
violation of which is alleged by the applicant. The court has to
consider the direction issued in the judgment or order.
The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with
the question of contumacious conduct of the party which alleged to
have committed deliberate default in complying with the directions in
2025:JHHC:18019-DB
the judgment or order.
27. Thus, the Tribunal should not have dismissed O.A. No.
051/00634/2023 by applying the principle of res-judicata on mere
ground that C.P. No. 70 of 2019 was dropped observing that the
order dated 19.12.2018 was complied with.
28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order dated
22.08.2023 passed in O.A. No. 051/00634/2023 is hereby quashed.
The respondent authorities are directed to pay the back wages to the
petitioner w.e.f. 11.02.2013 till 19.09.2019 along with 6% interest per
annum within eight (08) weeks.
29. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
30. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
A.F.R.
Ritesh/
