Miscalculation of notional service periods contrary to judicial directions entitles employees to differential wage arrears.

The petitioner was employed by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation ("the Corporation") as an Assistant Swimming Coach and served until his superannuation on 30.11.2020

In a previous litigation (SCA No. 9327 of 1992, decided on 07.06.2016), a coordinate bench of the High Court directed that a specific 15-month break in the petitioner's service be treated as "service" for notional benefits upon retirement

Following that judgment, the Corporation treated the entire period from the petitioner’s initial termination in the 1990s until the 2016 judgment as "notional," rather than limiting the notional treatment to the 15-month break.

Consequently, the petitioner was denied actual wages and permanency benefits for the intervening years

The petitioner filed the present writ seeking permanency benefits from 1990 and the recovery of differential pay

During the proceedings, the Corporation's Finance Department confirmed via internal communication that the petitioner’s calculation of arrears, totaling Rs. 4,47,456/-, was mathematically accurate

1. Whether the Corporation misapplied the 2016 judicial direction by treating the petitioner’s entire service period (from termination to reinstatement) as "notional" instead of limiting it to the specified 15-month break

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the differential amount of Rs. 4,47,456/- and costs for the delayed disbursement of retiral dues

The court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

It applied the principle of strict adherence to judicial directions regarding "notional benefits"—a legal fiction where a period of absence is counted for seniority and pension but does not entitle the employee to back wages.

The court relied on the specific mandate of the coordinate bench in SCA No. 9327 of 1992, which restricted the notional counting of service to a "break of 15 months" only

The court found that the Corporation committed a grave error by extending the "notional" status to the petitioner’s entire tenure leading up to the 2016 judgment

By doing so, the Corporation failed to grant the petitioner actual wages and benefits upon his reinstatement for the period he was physically in service.

The court highlighted that the previous 2016 order was explicit: only the 15-month break was to be considered notional for superannuation purposes

Since the Corporation's Finance Department eventually admitted the accuracy of the petitioner’s calculation (Rs. 4,47,456/-) in its communication dated 16.03.2026, the court determined there was no valid ground for withholding the payment

The court reasoned that had the Corporation interpreted the 2016 order in its "true spirit," the petitioner would have received these dues at the time of his retirement in November 2020

While the court declined to award interest due to the absence of a specific prayer, it awarded costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner because the delay was attributable to the Corporation's error

The total amount (Rs. 4,72,546/-) must be paid by 30.04.2026; failure to comply will trigger an interest rate of 6% per annum from 01.05.2026 until the date of realization