SURESH KUMAR Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 27.09.2012 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Tribunal') in Original Applications (in short 'OAs') No. 3052/2011.

(2.) MR . G.S. Charya, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of continuity of service in terms of the order dated 29.12.1996 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition being SLP No. 4276 of 1996 but the same was denied to him by the respondent. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is also entitled to the grant of arrears of pay from 18.07.1987 to 05.02.1997after fixation of his pay by giving the benefit of notional increments earned by him along with benefit of ACP and other legal dues. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is also entitled to pension after reckoning his past service w.e.f. 19.07.1977 till the date of his superannuation.

(3.) THE petitioner was appointed as Work Charge Apprentice Conductor in DTC vide letter dated 13.04.1976 and on the post of Conductor w.e.f. 23.05.1977 vide memo dated 09.06.1977. There is a chequered history of petitioner having faced various disciplinary proceedings and the petitioner challenging the same resulting into certain directions being given by the learned Tribunal from time to time. One of the order of termination dated 17.07.1987 was a subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 16543/1996 preferred by the petitioner and vide order dated 20.12.1996, the Supreme Court gave a direction for reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service but without the relief of back wages. In compliance with the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner was reinstated in service as Retainer Crew Conductor on 05.02.1997 and he was kept on probation. His period of probation was also extended vide order dated 31.05.1999 upto 01.06.2000. During this extended period of probation, he again indulged in misconduct of non -deposit of DTC articles and again his services were terminated w.e.f. 01.06.2000 under clause 9 (a) (i) of the DRTA (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulation 1952. This order was challenged by the petitioner in Appeal and by the order passed by the Appellate Authority he was again inducted into service with the condition that his performance will be watched before his regularisation. The petitioner did not join the service and raised an Industrial Dispute being ID No. 123/2001 and the learned Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 03.07.2003 directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service w.e.f. 01.06.2000 alongwith back wages for the period from 01.06.2000 to 10.10.2010. In para 5 of the impugned order the learned Tribunal observed that as far as the period from 01.06.2000 to 10.10.2010 is concerned, the petitioner has as already been granted full back wages and continuity of service. The learned Tribunal further observed that it is also not in dispute that the respondents have granted continuity of service to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.06.1998 for all purposes. It further observed that in the period from 14.08.1986 to 18.07.1987, there is no question of continuity of any kind of service, as the petitioner had never questioned the order of termination dated 17.12.1983 as well as his order of fresh appointment as Retainer Crew Conductor w.e.f. 14.01.1986. The period w.e.f. 18.07.1987 to 05.12.1997 would be treated as the period spent by him as Retainer Crew Conductor and not as an employee on monthly rate basis. In the operative para of the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal held as under: -