GIRDHARILAL Vs. D T C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner claimed several reliefs in these proceedings under Article 226, but at the time of hearing, the principal grievances agitated were in respect of the withholding of pension, by the respondent Corporation (hereafter referred to as "the DTC"), and denial of promotion. Directions were sought to the DTC, in that regard.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Fitter by the DTC in 1956. He was later promoted as Mechanic in 1959 and subsequently promoted as Assistant Foreman in 1967. His services were terminated by recourse to Regulation 9 (b) framed by the DTC by mere issuance of a notice. That provision was challenged, in writ proceedings namely, CW 245/1978. That Regulation was declared void, by a Division Bench of this Court. The judgment setting aside the Regulation was upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision reported as DTC Mazdoor Congress Vs. Union of India, 1991 Supp.(l) SCC 600.

(3.) By judgment and order dated 29.9.1998 this Court allowed the petitioner writ petition and quashed the order of termination dated 25.6.1976. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to continuity of service and seniority but as regards back wages he was directed to file an affidavit. The affidavit however, was not filed. As a result there was no direction to pay back wages. The operative portion of the order dated 29.9.1998 is as follows:-