D P GUGLANI Vs. ASSOCIATED TRADERS AND ENGINEERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was employed as a Clerk with the respondent Management of M/s Associated Traders & Engineers Limited at a monthly salary of Rs. 110.00 from the year 1963. He was served with the transfer order on 13th October 1981 transferring him to Hyderabad. The petitioner challenged the transfer order by of & suit in the court of Sub- Judge, 1st Class, Delhi. Alongwith the suit he made an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code praying for the staty of the transfer order. Since the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi refused to stay the transfer order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Delhi which was also rejected. Challenging this order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi the petitioner filed a revision petition (C.R. 1009/83) in this Court. Alongwith the revision petition, an application for stay of the transfer order was also filed and this Court on 19th January 1984 passed the following order :

(2.) Daring the pendency of the revision petition, on 1st December, 1984 the petitioner filed a contempt petition being C.C.P. 17 of 1985 alleging that inspite of the order of this Court dated 19th January 1984 the respondents had not obeyed the stay order. The petitioner had repeatedly approached the respondents to allow him to join his normal duties at Ballabgarh and also to pay his wages, however the respondents had refused to assign him any duties at Ballabgarh. When this contempt petition came up for hearing on 11th March 1985 a statement was made by the learned counsel for the respondents that the order of this Court was obeyed and the petitioner had not been transferred, however as the petitioner had almost reached the age of superannuation and was to retire on 28th January 1985 tie was not being assigned any work and the respondents were willing to pay the entire arrears of salary due to the petitioner for the period upto 2ath January 1985. Learned counsel for the petitioner objected to the fact that the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation. However since that question was not ths subject matter of the dispute in the revision petition, this Court, without going into the question whether the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation or not, directed the respondents to pay to the petitioner the entire arrears of salary etc. upto 28th January 1985,

(3.) It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the order of this Court dated 11th March 1985 and as per the statement of the counsel for the respondents made in Court on that day the petitioner was to be paid the entire arrears of salary upto 28th January 1985. This order meant that the petitioner would be paid arrears of salary from the date the transfer order was communicated to him till the date of his alleged superannuation i.e. upto 28th January 1985, however the respondents had only paid salary from the date the petitioner had obtained a stay order from this Court i.e. from 19th January 1981 to 28th January 1985. It was submitted that since the transfer order was stayed by this Court on 19th January 1984 the petitioner would be deemed to be working all through-out as if the transfer order had not been made at all.