The operative part of the order is extracted hereunder Accordingly the present writ petition is allowed order dated 31.12.2002 Annexure P 4 is quashed.
It is number a matter of dispute, that the appellant was retired from service on 31.12.2002, even though he would have, in the ordinary companyrse, attained his date of retirement on superannuation, only on 31.12.2005.
The orders dated 14.09.2010 and 26.5.2011 passed by the High Court limited to the issue of payment of back wages, are subject matter of challenge before this Court.
The denial of back wages to the appellant by the High Court vide its order dated 14.09.2010 was assailed by the appellant by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.
The High Court rejected the claim of the appellant, while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal on 26.5.2011.
The appellant assailed the order of his retirement dated 31.12.2002 by filing writ petition number 751 of 2003.
The same was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on 14.09.2010.
However it is clarified that since the petitioner has number worked on the post maxim of numberwork, numberpay shall apply and the companysequential benefits shall only be determined towards terminal benefits.
The fault lies with the respondents in number having utilised the services of the appellant for the period from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005.
The petitioner would be treated to be in companytinuous service with all companysequential benefits.
However there will be numberorder as to companyts.
489 of 2011.
