MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD Vs. RAKESH KULSHRESHTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE aforesaid three writ petitions arises from a common order dated October 11, 2011 in three Transfer Applications Nos.12/2009, 16/2009 and 1241/2009, which were initially initiated as writ petitions before this Court and later transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi whereby the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders in the Transfer Applications with an observation that consequences in accordance with law would flow.

(2.) THE issue in all three Transfer Applications, before the Tribunal was identical, although relate to different periods, as to whether the period of alleged unauthorised absence, was rightly declared as dies non.

(3.) THIS petition arises from T.A. No.12/2009 wherein a case was set up by the respondent No.1 that on his promotion as Telephone Technical Assistant he was posted, on September 12, 1995, to the office of General Manager (West-I). According to him when he reported for duty he was not allowed to join. Despite his representations no posting order was given. After about four years in the year 1999, he filed WP(C) No.3217/1999 in this Court wherein an interim order was passed by this Court permitting him to join his duties, which he did on September 22, 1999. According to him despite joining duties he was not given his arrears of pay. He was placed under suspension on February 02, 1996 which was later revoked on October 13, 1997. No departmental proceedings were initiated against him. He later came to know that without any notice the period in question was treated as dies non without pay and allowances and without break in service for the purpose of pension and other service benefits vide order dated March 13, 2002. This order was challenged by him in WP(C) No.7506/2004 on the ground that the order is in violation of principles of natural justice. Without determining after hearing him that he was unauthorisedly absent such an action could not have been taken. Suffice would it be to state that the petitioner/MTNL has opposed the claim of the respondent No.1 herein and justify their action on the ground that he has absented for 4 years and 12 days and did not perform any duty in spite of several letters asking him to join his duties.