SURESH KUMAR D. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the applicant before the Tribunal. The petitioner, while working as Deputy Director of Administration in Prasar Bharati, was transferred from Bhopal to Mumbai as per Annexure-A2. He challenged the transfer before the Central Administrative Tribunal [CAT], Jabalpur Bench, which was rejected. In an original petition filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, there was an order directing reconsideration. On reconsideration, the request was again rejected, which was unsuccessfully challenged before the CAT and the High Court.

(2.) But in the meanwhile, an appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed as per Annexure-A20. The transfer order was cancelled on sympathetic grounds. The period of absence from duty was directed to be regularised as Eligible Leave or Extraordinary Leave. The petitioner before the Tribunal challenged the appellate order to the extent the period of absence was directed to be treated as Eligible Leave or Extraordinary Leave. The petitioner claimed that it has to be treated as 'on duty'. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the appellate order. We also do not find any reason to interfere with the appellate order or the Tribunal's order, since the cause of litigation as noticed in the beginning of the judgment would commend us to not extent any equity in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner had approached different forums and even the High Court had rejected his case. The Appellate Authority also cancelled the transfer order only on a sympathetic consideration. Ideally the petitioner ought to have joined in the transferred post and challenged the order. The petitioner cannot have any claim for consideration of the leave period as duty, especially since he had not worked during the period and had kept away voluntarily from duty on the reason of a transfer order. We hence find no way to interfere with the order.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that when the matter was pending before this Court, the official respondents had issued Ext.R1(b) order produced along with the Counter Affidavit. Ext.R1(b)regularised his service with the Prasar Bharati and also conceded to the Appellate Order, and treated his leave period as Eligible Leave or Extraordinary Leave. The order was issued after the judgment of the Tribunal impugned in this original petition. Ext.R1(b) is dated 04.06.2015. It is also stated therein that the order would be subject to the result of this original petition. On this reservation made in the order, the learned Senior Counsel seeks to challenge the deduction made from his DCRG. The gratuity paid to him is not in full, is the contention.