POONAM RAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Telecom Officer Assistant (in short 'TOA') vide order dated 31.10.1997 issued by the respondent no.2, Chief General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (for short 'MTNL'). It is the case of the petitioner that although initially the petitioner was appointed in terms of order of appointment, which is dated 31.10.197, at pages 10 to 13 of the paper book, however the petitioner was confirmed on 23.12.197 and service of petitioner was regularised vide order dated 28.2.2002 w.e.f. 31.10.1999. The name of the petitioner figures at serial no.124 of the order dated 28.2.2002 which is at page-25 of the paper book.

(3.) Mr.H L Tikku, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 27.4.2002 is not only illegal but, as a matter of fact, has not taken into consideration the regular appointment of the petitioner, which the respondent itself had made on 28.2.2002. It was contended that the respondent could not have relied upon the initial appointment letter, which was issued in the year 1997 and after regular appointment reliance placed by the respondent on the terms of conditions of the initial appointment letter of 1997 was illegal. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. DTC Mazdoor Congress and others AIR 1991 SC 101 and Delhi Stock Exchange and anr. Vs. K C Sharma & ors. 2002 (7) AD (DELHI) 432.