LAKHMI CHAND Vs. MGMT. OF D.T.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.)

(2.) BY the present petition the Petitioner assails the award dated 6th July, 2004 whereby the learned Trial Court held that the Petitioner was deemed to have resigned and thus was entitled to benefits available to a person who has resigned after serving since 1974 up to the date when he was deemed to have resigned as per service rules. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that Clause 14(10)(c) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 (in short the Regulations) has been struck down as violative of the principles of the audi alteram partem by this Court in DTC Vs. Om Kumar & Ors. : 95 (2002) DLT 425. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and it be held that the deemed resignation of the Petitioner was illegal being violative of the principles of natural justice as neither any notice was issued nor any intimation was given nor any enquiry was conducted before the Petitioner was deemed to have resigned. The Petitioner has since attained the age of 65 years and thus no relief of reinstatement is now possible. However, in the facts of the case, the Petitioner is entitled to full back wages with interest thereon. Reliance is placed on Novartis India Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. : (2009) 3 SCC 124 and Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr. : (2012) 3 SCC 178.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The Petitioner was employed as a driver in 1974. However on 24th April, 1989 he was convicted by the Bundi Court, Rajasthan and thus was taken into custody. The Petitioner absented since then. His leave up to 8th August, 1989 was regularized by the Respondent vide order dated 10th August, 1989. However, his absence beyond 8th August, 1989 could not be regularized and thus pursuant to Clause 14(10)(c) of the Regulations the Petitioner was declared as deemed to have resigned from the services of the Corporation with effect from 9th August, 1989. The Petitioner was released from custody on 21st February, 1991 and he filed an appeal to the Department on 6th June, 1991 which was rejected. Thus, on a dispute being raised, a reference in the following terms was sent, "whether Shri Lakmi Chand abandoned his job or his services were terminated by the management illegally and/ or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what relief is he entitled to and what directions are necessary in this respect". On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the Petitioner was deemed to have resigned and was thus entitled for benefits available to a person after serving since 1974. The impugned order is required to be set aside in view of the decision of this Court in DTC Vs. Om Kumar (supra) wherein this Court held: