MAHESH CHAND SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release to the petitioner, all benefits including arrears of pay for the period of September 1996 to 10th August, 2000 and to treat this period as on duty.

(2.) Before proceeding to deal with the petition on merits, it is desirable to mention brief facts leading up to the present petition. The petitioner joined the Department of Telecommunication on 19th November, 1977 as a technician. Respondent No.2, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) was constituted in the year 1986 and the petitioner was transferred to MTNL on deemed deputation. In September 1996, the petitioner was transferred from Karol Bagh Exchange to Delhi Cantt. Telephone Exchange. However, the petitioner joined service only on 10th August, 2000 at Delhi Cantt. and was not paid the salary and other benefits for a period of four years, i.e. with effect from September, 1996 to August, 2000.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner could not join service at Delhi Cantt pursuant to his transfer order because the Divisional Engineer Telephone at Delhi Cantt. Exchange refused to take him in service on the ground that there was no post/vacancy of Technical Supervisor available in the said telephone exchange. It is further alleged by the counsel that thereafter the petitioner again reported for duty at Karol Bagh, but there also the then SDE refused to take him in service and demanded Rs. 5000/- to let him join in service. It was stated that after having exhausted all his remedies, and making a number of representations, the petitioner submitted a complaint to the Vigilance Cell and it was only upon intervention of the Vigilance Cell that the petitioner was allowed to join on 19th August, 2000 at Delhi Cantt. However, no dues were paid to him for the intervening period and the period from September 1996 to 10th August, 2000 was declared as dies non. It was argued that since the petitioner was kept out of work for no fault of his, the said dues and other benefits cannot be denied to him by the respondents.