Smt. Pooja Sharma v. Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited

Judgment

#1. These two writ petitions filed by the petitioner and the subject matter and issue are almost similar in both writ petitions, which arise out of the employment of deceased employee Mr. Praveen Sharma; therefore, they are being tagged, heard and decided together.

#2. The petitioner has filed the present W.P.(S) No. 3764/2023 claiming the following reliefs:- “(i) To call for entire records pertaining to the case. (ii) To declare that the departmental proceedings initiated vide charge sheet dated 31.12.2020 lapsed on the death of husband of Petitioner having been remained unconcluded and direct respondents to grant consequential benefits. (iii) To issue writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith pay the back wages to the petitioner that became payable on reinstatement of husband of petitioner on

11.11.2020 for the period 25.06.2010 to the date of reinstatement alongwith interest @ 10 % p.a. compounded yearly. (iv) To direct respondents to calculate and pay the salary and benefits of the said period from 25.06.2010 to 11.11.2020 for the higher post/posts to which he would have been promoted on completion of requisite years of service on the feeder post as one of the consequential benefit. 3 (v) To direct respondents to pay the balance of retiral dues of husband of petitioner to petitioner including gratuity alongwith interest @ 10 % p.a. compounded yearly. (vi) To direct respondents to pay compensation of Rs 25 lacs for mental agony suffered by petitioner. (vii) To direct respondents to pay the cost litigation to petitioner. (viii) To grant any other relief deemed fit and proper by the Hon’ble

High Court in the interest of justice.”

#3. The petitioner has filed the present W.P.(S) No. 4178/2023 claiming the following reliefs:- “(i) To call for entire records pertaining to the case. (ii) To declare that the departmental proceedings initiated vide a charge sheet containing identical charges as were leveled against him by charge sheet dated 29.08.2008 lapsed on the death of husband of Petitioner having been remained unconcluded and direct respondents to grant consequential benefits. (iii) To direct respondents to pay the balance of retiral dues of husband of petitioner to petitioner including gratuity alongwith interest @ 10 % p.a. compounded yearly. (iv) To direct respondents to pay compensation of Rs 25 lacs for mental agony suffered by petitioner. (v) To direct respondents to pay the cost litigation to petitioner. (vi) To grant any other relief deemed fit and proper by the Hon’ble High Court in the interest of justice.”

#4. The common facts of the case in both writ petitions are that the petitioner is the wife of the deceased employee, namely Praveen Sharma, who was working with the Respondent No. 1/Corporation, in the post of Deputy Business Manager. Initially, he joined the post of Accountant in the year 4 1986, and ultimately, after several years of his service tenure, he was posted as Deputy Business Manager in the year 2007. At the time of bifurcation of the State, his services were allocated to the Respondent No. 1/Corporation. In the year 2008, certain charges were levelled against the husband of the petitioner, and he was implicated in an offence registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Mahasamund. In the Criminal Case, the husband of the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 02-07-2014 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund. In the year 2006, a charge sheet was issued against the husband of the petitioner for the initiation of a departmental inquiry against him, which culminated in imposing a major penalty of his termination from service and recovery of Rs. 1.5 Crore from him, which is half of the loss sustained by the Respondent No. 1/Corporation, vide order dated 25-06-2010. The departmental appeal preferred by the husband of the petitioner was rejected, and thereafter, a Writ Petition (S) No. 69/2011 was preferred before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of on 24-10-2013 with the direction to the appellate authority of the Respondent No. 1/Corporation to decide the appeal of the husband of the petitioner by a speaking order. Thereafter, another Writ Petition (S) No. 4239/2014 was filed by the husband of the petitioner, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 18-01-2021 with liberty to approach the Court if need so arises. Before the withdrawal of the W.P.S. No. 4239/2014, the husband of the petitioner was reinstated on 11-11-2020, after quashment of all the departmental orders. Thereafter, the W.P.S. No. 4239/2014 was withdrawn. Since all the departmental orders, including the termination order, were quashed by the Corporation, the husband of the petitioner was entitled to all the consequential benefits, including the back wages.

#5. After his reinstatement on 11-11-2020, another disciplinary proceeding was issued on 31-12-2020, against him pertaining to Kunkuri Kendra and another charge sheet was issued on 21-10-2021 pertaining to Dhamtari and 5 Mahasamund. The allegations in the subsequent disciplinary proceeding were identical to the earlier proceeding, which was issued more than one and a half decades after the alleged incident. On 18-11-2022, the husband of the petitioner made his representation for quashment of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by saying that in the Criminal Case, he has been acquitted, and the loss of Rs. 3.30 Crores was recovered from the State Warehousing Corporation. In the meantime, the husband of the petitioner has passed away on 16-01-2023. Since the departmental benefits for the period from 25-06-2010 to 11-11-2020 have not been paid to him, she made a representation to the authorities. Only the CPF and insurance amount have been paid to her, and gratuity, etc., has not been paid to her. Hence, this petition.

#6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the department/Corporation has quashed all the departmental orders, including the order of termination of the husband of the petitioner, and he has been reinstated in service, he is entitled to all the service benefits, including the back wages. Though the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the husband of the petitioner, but the same was not concluded till his death, and it would automatically lapse on account of his death. He would rely upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 67/2016 (Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and Others v. Udho Prasad Sharma), order dated 26-02-2016. He would further submit that the husband of the petitioner was acquitted in the Criminal Case, and the amount of Rs. 3.30 Crores has already been recovered from the State Warehousing Corporation. The husband of the petitioner was reinstated in service after quashing all departmental orders, and therefore, there was no charge and no disciplinary inquiry against him. Despite there being no charge against him and the quashing of all the departmental orders, the service benefits of the husband of the petitioner from the year 2010 to 2020 6 are withheld by the Respondent No. 1/Corporation, and she is entitled to the same including the full back wages, interest and compensation, as she is the legal heir of the deceased employee.

#7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents/Corporation would submit that the petitioner has claimed multiple reliefs in her writ petition, which include various disputed questions of fact, and therefore, the writ petition as framed by the petitioner is not maintainable. He would further submit that in the 80th meeting of the Board, it was decided to quash all the departmental orders against the petitioner and to reinstate him in service; however, it was also clearly mentioned in the order dated 11-11-2020 that the departmental inquiry against the husband of the petitioner would be initiated separately. On 31-12-2020, another charge sheet was issued against the husband of the petitioner with respect to misappropriation and mishandling transportation of rice, when he was posted at Kunkuri Kendra and on 21-10- 2021, pertaining to Dhamtari and Mahasamund. During the pendency of the departmental inquiry, the petitioner has expired on 20-01-2023 (correct date is 16-01-2023 as per Annexure P-1). Thereafter, on 10-05-2023, the Respondent No. 1/Corporation immediately communicated for the release of admissible dues. The claim of EDLI has been deposited in the bank account of the petitioner. He would further submit that the charge sheet against the husband of the petitioner was pending in respect of alleged misappropriation arising out of Dhamtari, Mahasamund and Durg District. Though the husband of the petitioner was reinstated, there are serious allegations of misappropriation, and disciplinary proceedings were pending against him; he was not paid the departmental dues.

#8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition by the parties.

#9. It is not disputed by the parties that the husband of the petitioner was reinstated on 11-11-2020 (Annexure R-1). In the order dated 11-11-2020, it is 7 specifically mentioned that all the earlier departmental orders are quashed, and he is reinstated. Departmental inquiry would be initiated separately. This reinstatement order is the basis of the claim of the petitioner that all the departmental orders are quashed, and there is no charge against the husband of the petitioner, and he has been acquitted in the Criminal Case. Therefore, the petitioner, being the wife of the deceased employee, is entitled to all the departmental dues from the period of 2010 to 2020. It is necessary to quote here the contents of the order dated 11-11-2020 (Annexure R-1), which reads as under:- “dzekad@LFkkiuk@2020@924] jk; iqj] fnukad 11-11-2020 vkns’k fuxe lapkyd eaMy dh 80 oha cSBd fnukad 09-11-2020 ds ,ts.Mk dzekad 80-06 esa fy;s x;s fu.kZ; vuqlkj Jh izoh.k 'kekZ ds fo#) iwoZ esa tkjh leLr foHkkxh; vkns’kksa dks fujLr dj lsok esa cgky djrs gq, mUgsa mi&O;olk; izca/kd ds in ij eq[;ky;&jk; iqj esa rRdky izHkko ls inLFk fd;k tkrk gSA Jh izoh.k 'kekZ ds fo#) foHkkxh; tkap dh dk; Zokgh i`Fkd ls dh tkosxhA”

#10. It is also not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner was reinstated on 11-11-2020, and a charge sheet was issued on 31-12-2020 in respect of Kunkuri Kendra. Another charge sheet was issued on 21-10-2021 pertaining to Dhamtari and Mahasamund as reflected from the document Annexure R-7 in W.P.S. No. 4178/2023. During the pendency of the said charge sheets, the husband of the petitioner died on 16-01-2023. At the time of the death of the husband of the petitioner, the departmental inquiry proceeding was pending, but the same cannot proceed as the employee has died. The punishment order of his termination with respect to the departmental inquiry initiated in the year 2008 is quashed by the 80 th Board meeting, and there is no charge sheet for the same. There is no condition in the order dated 11- 11-2020 when the husband of the petitioner was reinstated, except that the departmental inquiry would be initiated separately. The said charge sheet 8 with respect to the allegation levelled in the year 2008, pertaining to Dhamtari and Mahasamund, was concluded, and a termination order of the employee was passed on 25-06-2010. The departmental appeal was dismissed, but subsequently, vide order dated 11-11-2020, all the departmental orders against the petitioner were quashed and he was reinstated, and the charge sheet was revived on 21-10-2021 (as reflected in Annexure R-7 in W.P.S. No. 4178/2023). The subsequent charge sheet dated 31-12-2020 was with respect to the allegation of Kunkuri Kendra, and the charge sheet dated 21-10-2021 was with respect to Dhamtari and Mahasamund, which was also not concluded and before its conclusion, the employee died.

#11. As per the settled law, once the employee facing the charge sheet dies, all the proceedings pending against him stand abated. It cannot be said that the department has the right to proceed against a dead employee and to pass an order against him. In the matter of “Shiksha Devi v. Haryana State Federation of Consumers Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd.” decided on 02-08-2022 in C.W.P. No. 21917 of 2016 (Punjab & Haryana High Court), it has held that:- "11. Even otherwise, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the respondent had jurisdiction to issue the chargesheets to the late husband of the petitioner, even after his retirement, then also the impugned order of recovery by way of punishment can not be sustained for the reason that no proceeding can continue against a dead employee. The husband of the petitioner, unfortunately, died on 16.05.2015. It is the conceded position that till the said date, none of the chargesheets had attained finality so as to give jurisdiction to the respondent to pass any orders on the chargesheet. After the death of the employee, disciplinary proceedings abate; hence, as the husband of the petitioner had already passed away, the proceedings initiated by the respondents in respect of the three charge sheets could not have continued any 9 further. Keeping in view the said factual position, the recovery of Rs . 6,44,890/-, which has been imposed upon the late husband of the petitioner, is held to be bad and accordingly quashed."

#12. In the matter of “Gulam Gausul Azam and Others v. State of U.P. and Others”, 2014 SCC Online All. 6394, the Allahabad High Court has held that before the disciplinary authority could pass any order on the inquiry report, the petitioner died, ending the master and servant relationship; therefore, no punishment order can be passed. Relevant paragraph of the judgment are being quoted below:- "There is another aspect of the matter. In the present case Abdul Kareem expired on 15.7.2011, i.e. before the disciplinary authority could pass any order on the enquiry report dated 3.7.2011. In the circumstances therefore, the master and servant relationship between Late Abdul Kareem and the respondents also came to an end with his death and therefore, the impugned order dated 21.11.2011 could not have been passed after the death of Abdul Kareem. In my opinion therefore the disciplinary authority could not have passed the order dated 21.11.2011 withholding the retiral dues and other benefits of late Abdul Kareem. When Abdul Kareem died on 15.7.2011 he could not have been said to be a government servant thereafter and therefore the order dated 21.11.2011 on the face of it is a wholly illegal and arbitrary order and has no basis in law and cannot survive. So far as the matter of compassionate appointment of the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, for the same reasons that since the disciplinary authority has not taken any decision regarding the finding of guilt against late Abdul Kareem prior to his death, it could not be said that the charge had been established against late Abdul Kareem as disciplinary proceedings are concluded only with the passing of the order of disciplinary authority and not when the enquiry officer submits his report. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and both the impugned orders dated 21.11.2011 and 1.3.2012 are 10 quashed. The respondents are directed to take steps for payment of all retiral benefits to the legal heirs of late Abdul Kareem. So far as the order dated 1.3.2012 regarding rejection of the claim of petitioner no.1 for compassionate appointment is concerned, a direction is issued to the District Magistrate, Deoria respondent no. 3 to take a decision afresh in this regard having regard to the educational qualification of the petitioner no. 1 and availability of vacancy within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received in his office." In the aforesaid case, the dispute was that the father of petitioner Abdul Kareem was died on 15.07.2011 before the disciplinary Authority could pass any order on the inquiry report dated 3.7.2011 and the Court has held that after the death, no such order can be passed against the petitioner and further directed the authority to pay full post retiral benefits.

#13. A similar dispute has also come before the Jharkhand High Court in the case of “Jayanti Devi v. State of Bihar and Others”, 2001 SCC Online Jhar. 370, the Court, after following the decision of the Bombay High Court, had taken the same view and directed the respondents to pay all post- retirement benefits to the widow. Relevant Paragraph Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of the judgment are being quoted below:- “9- It is well settled that a departmental proceeding can be initiated against the government servant for the purpose of imposing penalty if misconduct is established. The imposition of penalty like dismissal or removal has nexus to the contract of service. The proceeding therefore automatically lapse or terminated by reason of death of delinquent employee unless otherwise it is continued in accordance with rules. Similar-question arose before the Bombay High Court in the case of Hirabai Deshmukh and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 1986 Lab IC 248. A Division Bench while deciding the question observed : 'The provisions with regard to dismissal, removal and suspension of the civil servant do not permit holding of any further enquiry into the conduct of such a civil servant after his death. Such 11 proceeding are intended to impose departmental penalty and would abate by reason of the death of civil servant. The purpose of proceedings is to impose penalty, if misconduct is established against the civil servant. That can only be achieved if the civil servant continues to be in service. Upon broader view the proceedings are quosi- criminal in the sense it can result in fault finding and further imposition of penalty. The character of such proceedings has to be treated as quasi-judicial for this purpose. In the light of the character of the proceedings and the nature of penalty like dismissal or removal, or any other penalties, minor or major, it has nexus to the contract of service. Therefore, if the person who has undertaken that contract is not available, it should follow that no proceedings can continue. Thus when the proceedings are quite personal in relation to such a contract of service, the same should terminate upon death of the delinquent. By reason of death, such proceedings would terminate and abate. We think that such a result is also inferable from the provisions of Rule 152-B of the Bombay Civil Services Rules."

#10. In the instant case admittedly the delinquent-employee died on 24.3.1999 and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 30.8.1999. In the enquiry report (Annexure F) the Enquiry Officer took notice of the fact that the delinquent- employee died on 24.3.1999. The Enquiry Officer further took notice of the fact that the delinquent- employee had requested the respondents to keep the departmental proceeding in abeyance till the disposal of the case pending before him. However the Enquiry Officer after the death of delinquent employee called upon the respondents and on the basis of documents produced by them submitted enquiry report and on the basis of that report a formal order of dismissal was passed. In my opinion therefore the manner in which respondents proceeded with the departmental proceeding against the delinquent- employee, the enquiry report as well as the order of dismissal is vitiated in law and is null and void. I am, further of the view that the widow of the deceased employee cannot be deprived of her legitimate claim of death-cum-retirement benefits on the 12 ground of dismissal of the employee on the basis of departmental proceeding initiated after 6 years of the order of suspension and that to on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer after proceeding ex parte against the deceased- employee who died much before the date when the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the matter and submitted his report.

#11. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ application is allowed and the respondents are directed to release all the death-cum- retirement dues in favour of the petitioner, who is widow of the deceased employee as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order."

#14. Further, in the matter of “Kaushlya Devi v. State of Bihar and Others”, 2023 SCC Online Pat. 106, in para 16 of its order, the Patna High Court has held that:- “16. It is settled proposition of law that judicial enquiry or departmental proceeding against a delinquent totally abates on death of an employee for the simple reason that in order to punish an employer, there must be subsistence of employer and employee relationship. Once an employee died the said relationship ceases. The defence, if any, is a personal defence available to the employee and no person can be substituted in place of dead employee; and defend the conduct of a dead employee and, as such, no order could have been passed withholding the retirement or any outstanding dues.”

#15. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of pleadings and documents placed on record, it is amply clear that in the present case, the husband of the petitioner was reinstated on 11-11-2020 after quashing all the earlier departmental orders against him, and during the pendency of the subsequent charge sheet, he died on 16-01-2023. Thus, the master and servant relationship is over on the death of the employee, and the departmental proceeding cannot be continued after his death, and as such, there is no order against him. When he was reinstated on 11-11- 13 2020, the condition was put in his reinstatement that the departmental inquiry would be initiated separately; however, another charge sheet was issued on 31-12-2020 in respect of Kunkuri Kendra, that too after about one and a half decades of the alleged incident, and on 21-10-2021 in respect of Dhamtari and Mahasamund.

#16. The petitioner has pleaded in para 8.14 of the writ petition that her husband remained unemployed before his reinstatement, i.e. for a period of about a decade, he had to withdraw the provident fund contribution and avail financial help for his survival and therefore, is entitled to the entire consequential benefits, including the full back wages. Since the termination order of the husband of the petitioner was withdrawn/quashed and he was reinstated on 11-11-2020 and after quashing all the earlier departmental orders against him, he remains out of service and its consequential benefits, the employee and the petitioner on his behalf as his legal heir, is entitled for back wages along with other consequential benefits.

#17. In “M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. V. The Employees of M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. and Others”, 1979 (2) SCC 80, the following has been held by the Supreme Court in para 9 (relevant part extracted) & para 11 : “9..............Ordinarily, therefore, a workman whose service has been illegally terminated would be entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness. That is the normal rule. Any other view would be a premium on the unwarranted litigating activity of the employer. If the employer terminates the service illegally and the termination is motivated as in this case, viz., to resist the workman’s demand for revision of wages, the termination may well amount to unfair labour practice. In such circumstances reinstatement being the normal rule, it should be followed with full back wages. Articles 41 and 43 of the Constitution would assist us in reaching a just conclusion in this respect. By a suitable legislation, to wit, the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 14 1947, the State has endeavored to secure work to the workmen. In breach of the statutory obligation the services were terminated and the termination is found to be invalid; the workmen though willing to do the assigned work and earn their livelihood, were kept away therefrom. On top of it they were forced to litigation upto the apex Court and now they are being told that something less than full back wages should be awarded to them. If the services were not terminated the workmen ordinarily would have continued to work and would have earned their wages. When it was held that the termination of services was neither proper nor justified, it would not only show that the workmen were always willing to serve but if they rendered service they would legitimately be entitled to the wages for the same. If the workmen were always ready to work but they were kept away therefrom on account of invalid act of the employer, there is no justification for not awarding them full back wages which were very legitimately due to them. A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Dhari Gram Panchayat v. Safai Kamdar Mandal(1), and a Division Bench of the Allahabad in Postal Seals Industrial Cooperative Society Limited v. Labour Court II, Lucknow, have taken this view and we are of the opinion that the view taken therein is correct.

#11. In the very nature of things there cannot to a straight-jacket formula for awarding relief of back wages. All relevant considerations will enter the verdict. More or less, it would be a motion addressed to the discretion of the Tribunal. Full back wages would be the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure. At that stage the Tribunal will exercise its discretion keeping in view all the relevant circumstances. But the discretion must be exercised in a judicial and judicious manner. The reason for exercising discretion must be cogent and convincing and must appear on the face of the record. When it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authority, that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, according to law and not humor. It is not to be 15 arbitrary, vague and fanciful but legal and regular (See Susannah Sharp v. Wakefiled).”

#18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh” 2005 (5) SCC 591 following has been held : “8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors like the manner and method of selection and appointment, i.e., whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment, namely, whether ad hoc, short term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important factors, which has to be taken into consideration, is the length of service, which the workman had rendered with the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at his age and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However, where the total length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the complete period, i.e., from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. Another important factor, which requires to be taken into consideration is the nature of employment. A regular service of permanent character cannot be compared to short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calendar year.”

#9. In M.L. Binjolkar v. State of M.P. 2005 (6) SCC 224, the Supreme Court placed reliance on Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya 2002 (6) SCC 41, Rajendra Prasad Arya v. State of Bihar 2009 (9) SCC 514, Sonepat Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ajit Singh 2005 (3) SCC 232, Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank v. Neelam 2005 (5) SCC 91, Manager, Reserve Bank of India v. S. Mani 2005 (5) SCC 100, Allahabad Jal Sansthan v. 16 Daya Shankar Rai 2005 (5) SCC 124, to hold that ‘the earlier view was that whenever there is interference with the order of termination or retirement, full back wages were the natural corollary. It has been laid down in the cases noted above that it would depend upon several factors, and the court has to weigh the pros and cons of each case and take a pragmatic view. That being so, we do not think it appropriate to interfere with the quantum of 50% fixed by the High Court’.

#10. The Supreme Court in Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and others vs. Ananta Saha and Others 2011 (5) SCC 142, reiterated the view that even after quashment of the order of termination, the payment of back wages still remains discretionary and the power to grant back wages is to be exercised by the court/tribunal keeping in view the facts in their entirety as no straitjacket formula can be evolved, nor a rule of universal application can be laid for such cases and further that even if the delinquent is re-instated, it would not automatically make him entitled for back wages as entitlement to get back wages is independent of re-instatement.

#19. Keeping in view the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above- stated cases and for the fact that in the case in hand, the husband of the petitioner was reinstated in service by the Respondents/Corporation after quashing the earlier departmental orders passed against him, though the order of holding him guilty in departmental proceeding is not set-aside on merits but quashed by the 80th Board meeting and in the meantime he was remained terminated, and right to initiate departmental inquiry separately is reserved by the Respondent No.1/Corporation, this Court is of the considered opinion that considering the entirety of the circumstances, awarding 50% back wages to the petitioner would serve the ends of justice. The petitioner is entitled to 50% back wages for the relevant period with respect to back wages payable to her husband. The petitioner is also entitled to other consequential benefits and remaining departmental dues, 17 like gratuity, etc., if already not paid. The petitioner is also entitled to simple interest @ 8% per annum on the dues payable to her, from the date of her entitlement till their payment.

#20. In view of the above consideration, the W.P.S. No. 3764/2023 is partly allowed, and W.P.S. No. 4178/2023 is disposed of.

#21. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil