LAWS(DLH)-2003-1-27

BINAY KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On January 28, 2003
BINAY KUMAR Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to modify and/or rectify the order dated 7.8.2001 to the extent of deleting the word 'interchange' and by incorporating the word 'transfer' in its place in the said order to make it in conformity with the office memorandum dated 17.9.1975 (Annexure P-5) with a further, direction to issue a fresh order making the appointment of the petitioner as Director (Personnel) in the National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Limited effective for a period of five years with effect from 7.8.2001 and also an order for revival of CWP No. 6094/2000.

(2.) The petitioner, while working as Director (Personnel) in the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited was suspended from service by order dated 1.10.1999. The petitioner challenged the said order in the writ petition filed by him, which was registered as CWP No. 6301/1999, which was dismissed by order dated 21.1.2000. Subsequently, however, after some negotiations between the parties the aforesaid order of suspension was revoked and he was proposed to be sent to the National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd., the respondent No. 2 awaiting which he was ordered to be on compulsory waiting.

(3.) The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order directing him to be on compulsory waiting by filing a second writ petition, which was registered as CW No. 4654/2000. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner also withdrew his consent to his proposed transfer to respondent No. 2 in December 2000. In view of the changed position, the respondent No. 1 also proposed to alter the position and filed an affidavit proposing to place the petitioner again under suspension. Accordingly, the writ was dismissed as in- fructuous on 9.4.2001 while giving liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order in terms of their affidavit dated 7.2.2001. However, thereafter the petitioner executed a fresh undertaking expressing his willingness for his pro- posed transfer to NHPC and for withdrawal of some of the cases filed by him. Consequent to the aforesaid position, a fresh order was passed by the respondents on 11.5.2001 putting the petitioner again on compulsory waiting pending finalisation of actions for placing his services with the respondent No. 2. The petitioner again filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the order dated 11.5.2001 putting him again on compulsory waiting, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 29.5.2001. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court, which was registered as LPA No. 295/2001. While the aforesaid appeal was pending before the Division Bench, the parties entered into further negotiations pursuant to the Court's observations for ending the controversy mutually. The said petition was disposed to by this Court on 1.6.2001 by recording a detailed order. The said order of the Division Bench is annexed in the writ petition as Annexure P-2 and the operative portion of the said order reads as follows :